Re: TOAST versus toast

On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 6:29 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 16.01.25 06:38, Peter Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >>> During some recent reviews, I came across some comments mentioning "toast" ...
> >>> TOAST is a PostgreSQL acronym for "The Oversized-Attribute Storage
> >>> Technique" [1].
> >>
> >> It is indeed an acronym, but usages such as "toasting" are all over
> >> our code and docs, as you see. I question whether changing that
> >> to "TOASTing" improves readability. I agree that consistently
> >> saying "TOAST table" not "toast table" is a good idea, but I'm
> >> not quite convinced that removing every last lower-case occurrence
> >> is a win, especially in these combined forms.
> >>
> >
> > Hi, thanks for the reply.
> >
> > How about I reduce the scope by only tackling the uncontroversial
> > stuff, and leave all those "combined forms" for another day?
> >
> > Attached is the reduced patch for changes to the documentation.
>
> committed

Thanks for pushing!

Those were all (supposedly) uncontroversial changes for just the SGML docs.

Originally, I had planned to see if this 1st patch would be pushed,
and if so, then look at making all the same kinds of changes to the
code comments. But, given the debate/time to get this far, I'm
thinking it's not worth opening Pandora's box a 2nd time. Please let
me know if you think otherwise.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia