Inconsistent GUC descriptions

Started by Kyotaro Horiguchiabout 1 year ago3 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Kyotaro Horiguchi
horikyota.ntt@gmail.com

Hello.

I found that a recent commit (fc069a3a631) introduced an inconsistent
description for a new GUC variable, enable_self_join_elimination. It
is written as "Enable removal of unique self-joins.", whereas similar
variables use "Enables xxx". The attached first patch makes the
message consistent with the typical wording.

While making this fix, I also noticed four other descriptions written
as "Enable xxx". The attached second patch corrects them for
consistency.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachments:

0001-Make-GUC-descriptions-consistent-1.patchtext/x-patch; charset=us-asciiDownload+1-2
0002-Make-GUC-descriptions-consistent-2.patchtext/x-patch; charset=us-asciiDownload+4-5
#2Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz
In reply to: Kyotaro Horiguchi (#1)
Re: Inconsistent GUC descriptions

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:32:40AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:

I found that a recent commit (fc069a3a631) introduced an inconsistent
description for a new GUC variable, enable_self_join_elimination. It
is written as "Enable removal of unique self-joins.", whereas similar
variables use "Enables xxx". The attached first patch makes the
message consistent with the typical wording.

While making this fix, I also noticed four other descriptions written
as "Enable xxx". The attached second patch corrects them for
consistency.

Keeping it simple.. I agree that your suggestions and your two
patches make things better, so OK for me. There may be a point in
backpatching as this is user-visible? Perhaps not.
--
Michael

#3Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz
In reply to: Michael Paquier (#2)
Re: Inconsistent GUC descriptions

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:42:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

Keeping it simple.. I agree that your suggestions and your two
patches make things better, so OK for me. There may be a point in
backpatching as this is user-visible? Perhaps not.

Done that as f2e4c2b2039e.
--
Michael