| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_statistic_ext.staenabled might not be the best column name |
| Date: | 2017-04-13 12:28:06 |
| Message-ID: | 11427.1492086486@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 04/12/2017 03:36 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>> "stakind" seems like a better name. I'd have personally gone with
>> "statype" but pg_statistic already thinks stakind is better.
> +1 to stakind
I agree with that, but as long as we're rethinking column names here,
was it a good idea to use the same "sta" prefix in pg_statistic_ext
as in pg_statistic? I do not think there's anyplace else where we're
using the same table-identifying prefix in two different catalogs,
and it seems a little pointless to follow that convention at all if
we're not going to make it a unique prefix.
We could go with "ste" perhaps, or break the convention of 3-character
prefixes and go with "stae".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yorick Peterse | 2017-04-13 12:29:33 | Re: [PATCH] Document the order of changing certain settings when using hot-standby servers |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-13 12:23:51 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |