On 6/17/20 12:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/17/20 6:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred
> > to as "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and
> > then a small internal variable in pgindent). AFAICT, it's not actually
> > exposed to userspace anywhere, so we could probably make the attached
> > change to blocklist at no "cost" (the only thing changed is the name
> > of the hash table, and we definitely change things like that in normal
> > releases with no specific thought on backwards compat).
> >
> >
>
> I'm not sure I like doing s/Black/Block/ here. It reads oddly. There are
> too many other uses of Block in the sources. Forbidden might be a better
> substitution, or Banned maybe. BanList is even less characters than
> BlackList.
>
>
> I know, bikeshedding here.
>
>
> I'd be OK with either of those really -- I went with block because it
> was the easiest one :)
>
> Not sure the number of characters is the important part :) Banlist does
> make sense to me for other reasons though -- it's what it is, isn't it?
> It bans those oids from being used in the current session -- I don't
> think there's any struggle to "make that sentence work", which means
> that seems like the relevant term.
>
> I do think it's worth doing -- it's a small round of changes, and it
> doesn't change anything user-exposed, so the cost for us is basically zero.
+1. I know post efforts for us to update our language have been
well-received, even long after the fact, and given this set has been
voiced actively and other fora and, as Magnus states, the cost for us to
change it is basically zero, we should just do it.
Jonathan