Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Euler Taveira is arguing in an autovacuum thread that we should give
> "storage parameters" a different name; his argument is that
> "autovacuum_enabled" is not really a parameter that relates to storage.
> He is proposing "relation parameters".
> I am against the idea of renaming them, for two reasons: 1. it's a
> user-visible change that doesn't seem to buy a lot; 2. it's a tedious
> patch to write.
> Can I get some votes?
I agree with leaving them alone. "Storage" might not be exactly le mot
juste anymore but it still gives you a good idea what they're meant for;
in particular that they are targeted at implementation concerns rather
than SQL-level semantics of the table. Moving to a content-free name
like "relation parameter" in order to cover all possible uses doesn't
seem like it helps anyone understand anything better.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
