Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> Specifying the GUCs in question is a good idea, done in the attached. I'm not
> sure the phrasing is spot-on though, but I can't think of a better one. If
> you
> can think of a better one I'm all ears.
I'd just change "the definition of" to "the definitions of".
LG
> On 27 Feb 2023, at 17:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
Specifying the GUCs in question is
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 24 Feb 2023, at 16:19, Tom Lane 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
> On 24 Feb 2023, at 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> I happened to notice that there were a few references to guc.c regarding
>> variables, which with the recent refactoring in 0a20ff54f have become stale.
>> Attached is a trivial patch to instead point to guc_tables.c.
>
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> I happened to notice that there were a few references to guc.c regarding
> variables, which with the recent refactoring in 0a20ff54f have become stale.
> Attached is a trivial patch to instead point to guc_tables.c.
Hmm, I think you may have done an overenthusiastic re
