| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: create table improvements |
| Date: | 2025-12-16 10:25:16 |
| Message-ID: | 83766e536155461b0e19514436fd3fbaa8e4c6a0.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2025-12-16 at 10:14 +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2025, at 12:43, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > <v4-0001-Unclutter-CREATE-TABLE-synopsis.patch>
>
> Overall the change looks good to me. I have only one comment about the naming
> of “oversize_storage”. Why not just “storage_parameters” or similar that
> sounds more straightforward?
"Storage parameter" is not a good idea, because we use that term for
something else: CREATE TABLE ... WITH (storage_parameter = value)
I think "oversize_storage" expresses well what is regulated here.
I'm open to "toast_options" or similar as an alternative, but I think
it might be better to avoid jargon - not everybody reading that page
will be familiar with the term.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2025-12-16 10:29:00 | Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-12-16 10:24:28 | Re: relfilenode statistics |