Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:31 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> FWIW, I'm not excited about this. We accept "bool" and "boolean" >> interchangeably, and it does not seem like an improvement for the >> docs to use only one form. By that argument, somebody should go >> through the docs and nuke every usage of "::" in favor of >> SQL-standard CAST(...) notation, every usage of "float8" >> in favor of DOUBLE PRECISION, every usage of "timestamptz" in >> favor of the long form, etc etc.
> I'm not terribly excited about it either, but mostly because it seems > like a lot of churn for a minimal gain, and it'll be consistent for > about 6 months before somebody re-introduces a conflicting usage. Yeah, that last is a really good point. > I do not, on the other hand, believe that there's no point in being > consistent about anything unless we're consistent about everything; > that's a straw man. That wasn't my argument; rather, I was saying that if someone presents a patch for s/bool/boolean/g and we accept it, then logically we should also accept patches for any of these other cases as well. I doubt that we would, if only because of the carpal-tunnel angle. Does that mean our policy is "we'll be consistent as long as it doesn't add too many characters"? Ugh. regards, tom lane