Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-06-06 11:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> Do we need two variables to control this? I was only looking at
>>> PG_COLOR, and noticed PG_COLORS only later. Keeping PG_COLORS aligned
>>> with {GCC,LS}_COLORS makes sense. How about removing PG_COLOR, and
>>> making "auto" the default? (Maybe we could still support "PG_COLORS=off")
>> I think the if we keep two variables user can set the same value to
>> both GCC_COLORS and PG_COLORS. Rather I think it's a problem that
>> there is no documentation of PG_COLORS. Thoughts?
> It looks like there is documentation for PG_COLORS in the release notes
> now, which seems like an odd place. Suggestions for a better place?
I stuck that in because Bruce's text didn't make any sense to me,
so I went and read the code to see what it was actually doing.
I didn't know that it hadn't been correctly documented in the first
place ;-)
I'm not for forcing "auto" mode all the time; that will surely break
things for some people. So I think the behavior is fine and
we should just fix the docs. (Possibly my opinion is biased here
by the fact that I hate all forms of colorized output with a deep,
abiding passion, as Robert would put it. So off-by-default is just
fine with me.)
> And any more opinions for PG_COLORS vs PGCOLORS naming?
Following the precedent of LS_COLORS makes sense from here.
regards, tom lane
