| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name |
| Date: | 2005-08-22 17:35:20 |
| Message-ID: | 430A0CD8.8070801@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>
>>I am thinking we should just call it constraint_exclusion.
>
>
> So, given the silence on this, I assume people think we should rename
> this before beta starts.
Well it depends either one seems correct per the postgresql.conf. For
example enable_seqscan, or "add"_missing_from_clause.
It seems that if the postgresql.conf parameter is actually causing a
different behavior we tend to note the behavior in the prefix (thus
enable/add) but that if it is more general we done (thus log_) .
I don't care either way but it seemed something to note before the
decision was made.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-22 17:50:52 | Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-08-22 17:24:44 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.0.3 and Ipv6 |