On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:41:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:22 AM Tomas Vondra > > <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Right, so that makes sense, but from a larger point of view, how much > > sense does it actually make? > > Maybe I'm just used to the names, but I find that things like > "enable_seqscan" and "enable_nestloop" are pretty readable. > Once they get longer, though, not so much. So I agree with > renaming enable_incrementalsort.
I think the big problem is that, without the extra underscore, it reads as increment-alsort. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
