Complete vs General Integral of first order PDE The following is an excerpt from Landau's Course on Theoretical Physics Vol.1 Mechanics:

... we should recall the fact that every first-order partial differential equation has a solution depending on an arbitrary function; such a solution is called the general integral of the equation. In mechanical applications, the general integral of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is less important than a complete integral, which contains as many independent arbitrary constants as there are independent variables.

Can someone clarify what's a complete integral and what's a general integral of a first order partial differential equation?
 A: In the general theory of partial differential equations and specifically for First-Order Partial Differential Equations one defines the general solution(Landau's general integral) and the complete integral as follows:

For a two-dimensional first order partial differential equation 
  $$f(x,y,z,z_x,z_y)=0. \tag{1}$$
  Complete Integral: A two parameter family of implicit solutions of the form (2) of (1) is called a complete integral of the partial differential equation.
  $$\phi(x,y,z,a,b)=0. \tag{2}$$
  General solution: A function of the form (3), where $u(x,y,z)$ and $v(x,y,z)$  are functions of $x,y,z$ and $\Phi$ is  an  arbitrary  smooth  function, $\Phi$ is  called  a  (implicit  or  explicit)  general solution of (1), if $z,z_x,z_y$ as determined by the relation (3) satisfy (1)
  $$\Phi(u,v)=0\tag{3}.$$

*If we have a complete integral (2) of (1), we can derive a general solution (3), we would show this later in the post but first, let's see how to derive the PDE (1) from the complete integral (2).
If we have a complete integral (2), we can obtain $d\phi/dx$ and $d\phi/dy$ :
$$\phi_x+z_x\phi_z=0. \tag{4}$$
$$\phi_y+z_y\phi_z=0. \tag{5}$$
With (2),(4),(5) we can obtain an expression of the form (1) that is free from the parameters $a$ and $b$. If (1) is obtained exactly from (2),(4),(5) then $\phi$ is a solution of the PDE (1).
Now, to derive a general solution (3) from a complete integral (2), we can impose $b=W(a)$ in the complete solution (2), obtaining $\Phi(x,y,z,a,W(a))$, and impose the condition $d\Phi/da=0$,
$$\frac{d\Phi}{da}=\Phi_a(x,y,z,a,W(a))+W'(a)\Phi_W(x,y,z,a,W(a))=0. \tag{6}$$
With (6) we can write $a=A(x,y,z)$ as a function of $x,y,z$. So the general solution derived from (2) can be written as 
$$\Phi\Big(x,y,z,A(x,y,z),W(A(x,y,z))\Big) = 0. \tag{7}$$
We can see that (7) in fact matches our definition of general solution.Now we will prove that (7) is a solution of (1), again $d\Phi/dx$ and $d\Phi/dy$ 
$$\Phi_x+z_x\Phi_z+ \Phi_A A_x+\Phi_W W'(A) A_x =0. \tag{8}$$
$$\Phi_y+z_y\Phi_z+ \Phi_A A_y+\Phi_W W'(A) A_y =0. \tag{9}$$
Now applying the condition (6) Equations (8), and (9) yield:
$$\Phi_x+z_x\Phi_z =0. \tag{8}$$
$$\Phi_y+z_y\Phi_z =0. \tag{9}$$
Now the systems of equations (2),(4),(5) yield the same derived expression (1) as (7),(8),(9), now $\Phi\Big(x,y,z,A(x,y,z),W(A(x,y,z))\Big)$ is a general solution of (1) and we can see that we obtain a different solution for every function $W$.
We can see that this solution is free of the parameters $a$ and $b$, when we choose a particular function $W$ we obtain a particular solution for the PDE.
Landau's generalizes this result in his footnote, however he does it for an easier equation, not a general  First-order PDE (1). The steps he does are the same as we did for a general two dimensional First-order PDE.
A: In Russian "integral" is a synonym of a solution of differential equation. "general integral" means general solution, "complete" probably means sum of particular solution and general solution  (called the complementary solution)
iPDEs
A: The notion "complete integral" here refers to solutions of specific (1st order) PDEs that depend on the maximal number of constants of motion. If you want a concrete example I can refer you to Equation (10) of this paper, or even better to Ref. [10] in that paper.
A "general solution", by contrast, need not depend explicitly on constants of motion, but usually contains some free (integration) function. As an example for a solution not depending explicitly on constants of motion see the "enveloping solution" in Eq. (11) of the paper above.
[I never encountered these notions anywhere, except when solving Hamilton-Jacobi equations - this seems to be also the context to which Landau refers.]
