To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: log_min_duration_statement units 
In-reply-to: <200904072223.n37MNG205211@momjian.us> 
References: <200904072223.n37MNG205211@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:23:16 -0400"
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:43:59 -0400
Message-ID: <23945.1239144239@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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.

			regards, tom lane