Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name
Дата
Msg-id 87u0hhhcku.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

> I thought about that, but is seems all our booleans could logically fall
> into the category of being enabled/disabled.  For add_missing_from, the
> add word is so people realize that it is really _adding_ to the FROM
> list, so I see it as different.
> 
> Anyway, change committed.  I can always change it back if people change
> their mind.

I suggest that the rule you've been (unconsciously) following is the
following: parameters that form a verb phrase do not need an enable_ prefix.
But parameters that form a noun phrase do or else they sound strange.

Put another way, "all boolean parameters are verb phrases; if they're not then
turn them into a verb phrase by prepending a verb like `enable'"

I see a couple exceptions (debug_assertions, geqo) but mostly they seem to
follow this pattern.

I'm not sure that's a bad rule. Verbs sound nice when you read them:

show_parser_stats true
enable_hashjoin   true

Nouns sound stranger and more awkward:

geqo true
parser_stats true
hashjoin true

-- 
greg



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: beginning hackers
Следующее
От: Rod Taylor
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: beginning hackers (was: indexes spanning multiple