Re: Stats for inheritance trees

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Another option would be to call it "inherits_ndistinct", or something
>>> like that, which seems a little more readable, but not great: I don't
>>> think there's going to be any getting around the need to RTFM before
>>> setting these parameters.
>>
>> Well, the previously agreed-to syntax was SET STATISTICS DISTINCT.
>> I don't see a problem with using "distinct" and "inherited_distinct"
>> or something like that.  "ndistinct" is probably not a good name to
>> expose to non-programmers.
>
> I like ndistinct because it makes the whole thing sound related to
> statistics, which it is.  But I'll do it your way unless there are
> other votes.

It's probably also worth noting that the reason I used DISTINCT
originally is because it's already a keyword. That's a moot point
here. But as I say I'll stick with your names unless there are
contravening votes.

...Robert