Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 13:21:59 +0200
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: suggest to rename enable_incrementalsort
Message-ID: <20200621112159.qtgedtrqw2c47pm4@development>
References: <df652910-e985-9547-152c-9d4357dc3979@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CAOBaU_bsOKEXgF_ik3bjAfV7HQAM+2MTbAwtKujqiu1YueeUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOBaU_bsOKEXgF_ik3bjAfV7HQAM+2MTbAwtKujqiu1YueeUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 09:05:32AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:26 AM Peter Eisentraut
><peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suggest to rename enable_incrementalsort to enable_incremental_sort.
>> This is obviously more readable and also how we have named recently
>> added multiword planner parameters.
>>
>> See attached patch.
>
>+1, this is a way better name (and patch LGTM on REL_13_STABLE).
>

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.

That being said, I'm not particularly attached this choice, so if you
think this is better I'm OK with it.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services