On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 09:51, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 8:39 AM Tom Lane <t...@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. Regards, Vignesh
