On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 6:38 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 10:36, vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > 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
