| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-06-22 15:22:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20200622152219.GC28999@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:41:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:22 AM Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > Right, so that makes sense, but from a larger point of view, how much
> > sense does it actually make?
>
> Maybe I'm just used to the names, but I find that things like
> "enable_seqscan" and "enable_nestloop" are pretty readable.
> Once they get longer, though, not so much. So I agree with
> renaming enable_incrementalsort.
I think the big problem is that, without the extra underscore, it reads
as increment-alsort. ;-)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-22 15:26:11 | Re: Missing "Up" navigation link between parts and doc root? |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-06-22 15:17:47 | Assertion failure in pg_copy_logical_replication_slot() |