From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
        Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
        Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: GUC names in messages
In-reply-to: <202311070933.ngoeikm2v4k4@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202311070933.ngoeikm2v4k4@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Tue, 07 Nov 2023 10:33:03 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <119065.1699368815.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2023 09:53:35 -0500
Message-ID: <119066.1699368815@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/119066.1699368815%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2023-Nov-01, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> +1, IMHO quoting GUC names makes it abundantly clear that they are special
>> identifiers.  In de4d456, we quoted the role names in a bunch of messages.
>> We didn't quote the attribute/option names, but those are in all-caps, so
>> they already stand out nicely.

> I like this, and I propose we codify it in the message style guide.  How
> about this?  We can start looking at code changes to make once we decide
> we agree with this.

WFM.

			regards, tom lane