On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> >> > If this is the case, then I think we could just decide that their name >> >> > is reloptions due to hysterical reasons and be done with it. >> >> >> >> Yeah. It's particularly unfortunate that we call them "reloptions" in >> >> the code but "storage parameters" in the documentation. Neither is a >> >> particularly good name, and having two different ones is extra-poor. >> >> But I'm fine with leaving the names as they are and moving on, if no >> >> one objects too much. Speak now or don't complain about it after I >> >> write the patch! >> > >> > Maybe after we move to Git we can rename them in the code? >> >> I'm OK with renaming it before I start working on the main patch, or >> after it's committed, or never. I just don't want to have to rebase >> it in the middle. > > I think "after we move to Git" goes well after "after your patch is > committed", so we're OK.
Or if not, then it's my own fault. :-) ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
