Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes:
> On 24 Feb 2023, at 16:19, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Perhaps you could use "the GUC mechanisms" in these places, but it's a bit
>> longer than "guc.c". Leaving such references alone seems OK too.
> I've opted for mostly leaving them in the attached v2.
This version seems OK to me except for this bit:
* This is a straightforward one-to-one mapping, but doing it this way makes
- * guc.c independent of OpenSSL availability and version.
+ * GUC definition independent of OpenSSL availability and version.
The grammar is a bit off ("the GUC definition" would read better),
but really I think the wording was vague already and we should tighten
it up. Can we specify exactly which GUC variable(s) we're talking about?
regards, tom lane
