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? I mean, I get the argument from tradition
and from internal naming consistency, but from a user perspective, why
does it makes sense for there to be underscores between some of the
words and not others? I think it just feels random, like someone is
charging us $1 per underscore so we're economizing.
So I'm +1 for changing this, and I'd definitely be +1 for renaming the
others if they weren't released already, and at least +0.5 for it
anyhow. It's bad enough that our source code has names_like_this and
NamesLikeThis and namesLikeThis; when we also start adding
names_likethis and NamesLike_this and maybe NaMeS___LiKeTh_is, I kind
of lose my mind. And avoiding that sort of thing in user-facing stuff
seems even more important.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
