Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 03:58:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I'm at -0.5 as to whether such a patch would actually be an improvement or
> whether the added possibilities would just be confusing and, because it is
> all optional, indefinitely so.

FWIW, I find this proposition of introducing a set of optional
synonyms to map with some special-case values we have in the
configurations a bit confusing, as that's basically introducing
enum-like options into GUCs that already have a type assigned.

The patch, with its set of options like special_disabled0,
special_disabled_all is not really easy to parse either so that's just
a recipe to make the set of synonyms to grow on an GUC-basis.

What I am wondering, though, is if there are cases in the existing
GUCs, with their existing types, where the situation of a default or
disabled value could be improved, though, to make the overall picture
more consistent.
--
Michael