| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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 16:16:34 |
| Message-ID: | 2079434.1592842594@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:41:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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. ;-)
Yeah, the longer the name gets, the harder it is to see where the
word boundaries are.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-22 16:17:13 | Re: suggest to rename enable_incrementalsort |
| Previous Message | Jim Woodworth | 2020-06-22 16:09:35 | may I help with Perl? |