Thread: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml?

Currently, config.sgml still describes the new "enum" GUC variables
as being of type "string" --- but pg_settings says they are "enum".
This is not very consistent, but I wonder whether changing the docs
would be more confusing or less so.  I note that section 18.1 doesn't
mention the enum alternative either.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Currently, config.sgml still describes the new "enum" GUC variables
> as being of type "string" --- but pg_settings says they are "enum".
> This is not very consistent, but I wonder whether changing the docs
> would be more confusing or less so.  I note that section 18.1 doesn't
> mention the enum alternative either.

From the perspective of the person setting it in the config, it still
"looks like a string", which is why I chose not to change it. I think
it'd make things more confusing.

18.1 probably deserves a note about it though, I'll see if I can come up
with something good there.

//Magnus

Tom Lane wrote:
> Currently, config.sgml still describes the new "enum" GUC variables
> as being of type "string" --- but pg_settings says they are "enum".
> This is not very consistent, but I wonder whether changing the docs
> would be more confusing or less so.  I note that section 18.1 doesn't
> mention the enum alternative either.

I looked into this and I think the documentation is fine.  If enums
didn't require quotes but strings did, we would document them
differently, but the fact is that enums are the same as strings except
enums have a limited number of possible values --- that isn't something
that is usually identified in a variable type definition heading.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +