| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: suggest to rename enable_incrementalsort |
| Date: | 2020-06-21 11:21:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20200621112159.qtgedtrqw2c47pm4@development |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 09:05:32AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:26 AM Peter Eisentraut
><peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> I suggest to rename enable_incrementalsort to enable_incremental_sort.
>> This is obviously more readable and also how we have named recently
>> added multiword planner parameters.
>>
>> See attached patch.
>
>+1, this is a way better name (and patch LGTM on REL_13_STABLE).
>
The reason why I kept the single-word variant is consistency with other
GUCs that affect planning, like enable_indexscan, enable_hashjoin and
many others.
That being said, I'm not particularly attached this choice, so if you
think this is better I'm OK with it.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josef Šimánek | 2020-06-21 11:31:16 | Re: [PATCH] Initial progress reporting for COPY command |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-06-21 10:38:22 | Re: pg_regress cleans up tablespace twice. |