On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:48 PM Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 5:04 PM Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 13 Aug 2025, at 01:16, Robert Treat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The first patch removes the term "Git" from the acronyms section and > > > instead creates an index entry that points to our source repository > > > information. > > > > This was previously discussed in this thread: > > > > https://postgr.es/m/8241CED6-F408-4660-A1AA-F3393AA26219%40yesql.se > > > > > For the second, ISTM we use the term GUC to refer to parameters pretty > > > liberally, but the term is not that easy to find in the docs (and > > > website search gives what is probably the best answer as result #7 of > > > 8). This creates an index entry for the term, as well as a glossary > > > entry which explains how it is commonly used. > > > > This seems like a good idea. > > +1 > > + <glossentry id="glossary-guc"> > + <glossterm>GUC</glossterm> > > Should we also include the full term "Grand Unified Configuration" here, e.g., > "Grand unified configuration (GUC)", similar to how "Log sequence number > (LSN)" > is shown in the glossary? Even though it's already in the acronyms docs, > it might be helpful to include it in the glossary as well. >
So when I first wrote this, I wrote the following: Originally a short-hand for Grand Unified Configuration, the subsystem which controls PostgreSQL server configuration, it is now a commonly used term for the individual configuration parameters themselves. While typically meant to refer to user settable parameters, it can also refer to internal or build-time parameters. That felt a little verbose, and ISTM the more important part was focusing on GUCs as postgres jargon for parameters rather than explaining the history (which as you noted is explained elsewhere), but I can see the argument for completeness over clarity. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
