Bruce Momjian writes:
> I thought about that, but is seems all our booleans could logically fall
> into the category of being enabled/disabled. For add_missing_from, the
> add word is so people realize that it is really _adding_ to the FROM
> list, so I see it as different.
>
> Anyway, change
Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I thought about that, but is seems all our booleans could logically fall
> > into the category of being enabled/disabled. For add_missing_from, the
> > add word is so people realize that it is really _adding_ to the FROM
> > list, so I see it as
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> >
> > show_parser_stats true
> > enable_hashjoin true
> >
> > Nouns sound stranger and more awkward:
> >
> > geqo true
> > parser_stats true
> > hashjoin true
>
> Interesting analysis. No verb in there.
Note that the verb isn't always the same a
Greg Stark wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Greg Stark wrote:
> > >
> > > show_parser_stats true
> > > enable_hashjoin true
> > >
> > > Nouns sound stranger and more awkward:
> > >
> > > geqo true
> > > parser_stats true
> > > hashjoin true
> >
> > Interesting analysis. No verb in ther
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>
> >>I am thinking we should just call it constraint_exclusion.
> >
> >
> > So, given the silence on this, I assume people think we should rename
> > this before beta starts.
>
> Well it depends either one seems correct per the postgresql.conf. For
> example enable_se
I am thinking we should just call it constraint_exclusion.
So, given the silence on this, I assume people think we should rename
this before beta starts.
Well it depends either one seems correct per the postgresql.conf. For
example enable_seqscan, or "add"_missing_from_clause.
It seems th
Bruce Momjian writes:
> pgman wrote:
>> Is enable_constraint_exclusion the proper name for this feature? I know
>> we have enable* in the optimizer settings, but that naming seems
>> unfortunate in that we should have just called it hash_join and it could
>> be enabled/disabled.
>>
>> I am think
pgman wrote:
> Is enable_constraint_exclusion the proper name for this feature? I know
> we have enable* in the optimizer settings, but that naming seems
> unfortunate in that we should have just called it hash_join and it could
> be enabled/disabled.
>
> I am thinking we should just call it cons
Is enable_constraint_exclusion the proper name for this feature? I know
we have enable* in the optimizer settings, but that naming seems
unfortunate in that we should have just called it hash_join and it could
be enabled/disabled.
I am thinking we should just call it constraint_exclusion.
--
