On 2017/10/04 4:27, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> Regarding nomenclature and my previous griping about wisdom, I was
>>> wondering about just calling this a "partition join" like you have in
>>> the regression test. So the GUC would be enable_partition_join, you'd
>>> have generate_partition_join_paths(), etc. Basically just delete
>>> "wise" throughout.
>>
>> Partition-wise join is standard term used in literature and in
>> documentation of other popular DBMSes, so partition_wise makes more
>> sense. But I am fine with partition_join as well. Do you want it
>> partition_join or partitionjoin like enable_mergejoin/enable_hashjoin
>> etc.?
>
> Well, you're making me have second thoughts. It's really just that
> partition_wise looks a little awkward to me, and maybe that's not
> enough reason to change anything. I suppose if I commit it this way
> and somebody really hates it, it can always be changed later. We're
> not getting a lot of input from anyone else at the moment.
FWIW, the name enable_partition_join seems enough to convey the core
feature, that is, I see "_wise" as redundant, even though I'm now quite
used to seeing "_wise" in the emails here and saying it out loud every now
and then. Ashutosh may have a point though that users coming from other
databases might miss the "_wise". :)
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
