On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 6:38 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 10:36, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 09:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 8:39 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > >> I think the problem is not so much the underscore as the
> > > >> inconsistency. You've got "pub", "gen", and "cols" run together,
> > > >> but then you feel a need to separate "type"?
> > >
> > > > It was easy to read and to avoid getting a single word too long.
> > > > However, I do understand your concern. so will change it to
> > > > pubgencolstype unless you or someone prefers pubgencols?
> > >
> > > I think I'd vote for "pubgencols". I don't see what the "_type"
> > > suffix is supposed to convey --- there is nothing very type-y about
> > > this.
> >
> > I believe simply renaming the catalog column to 'pubgencols' should
> > suffice. We can keep the internal structure name as 'pubgencols_type'
> > as it is not exposed, unless you prefer to update it to 'pubgencols'
> > as well.
>
> The attached patch has the changes for the same.
>
Hi Vignesh
The changes LGTM.
I was surprised that there was no need to modify any expected test
output. I guess that means there are no tests anywhere directly
looking at the pg_publication catalog column names, but instead, all
tests for that catalog must be going via a publication view or using
psql describe output.
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
