Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes: > > Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > >> My English is not as good as yours but here is another try. Personally, I > >> prefer the second one but... > > > Great, I used your second version. I had already done some of the ones > > you found, but you had many more. I also used your "0 disables" wording > > consistently in the file. Thanks for the help. Committed. > > You know, it suddenly strikes me that this is going in largely the wrong > direction. Wasn't a key part of the reasoning for the GUC units support > to *eliminate* the need for people to know what the underlying > variable's unit is? I certainly think that putting the unit info into > the text descriptions is a seriously bad idea. It makes an already > overly wide view even wider, and the information is 100% redundant with > the "unit" column of the pg_settings view.
Right, the problem particularly is with the -1/special values that don't have a real unit. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
