Re: pg_statistic_ext.staenabled might not be the best column name

On 04/13/2017 03:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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".

We have a bunch of > 3-character prefixes already: amop*, amproc*,
enum*, cast*. But I think I nevertheless like "ste" better.

That said, we also have two existing tables with the same prefix:
pg_constraint and pg_conversion. Both use "con" as the prefix. Yes, it
is a bit confusing, let's not to make the same mistake again.

- Heikki