Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name
Date
Msg-id 200508222146.j7MLkj611513@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark wrote:
> 
> 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

Interesting analysis.  No verb in there.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Need help on SpikeSource Testing Contest
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Sleep functions