On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:41:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:22 AM Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> The reason why I kept the single-word variant is consistency with other
> >> GUCs that affect planning, like enable_indexscan, enable_hashjoin and
> >> many others.
>
> > Right, so that makes sense, but from a larger point of view, how much
> > sense does it actually make?
>
> 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. ;-)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee