Horton

Re: suggest to rename enable_incrementalsort

James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-07-02T15:25:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

I think the change makes a lot of sense. The only reason I had it as
enable_incrementalsort in the first place was trying to broadly
following the existing GUC names, but as has already been pointed out,
there's a lot of variation there, and my version of the patch already
changed it to be more readable (at one point it was
enable_incsort...which is short...but does not have an obvious
meaning).

I've attached a patch to make the change, though if people are
interested in Tom's suggestion of enable_sort_incremental I could
switch to that.

James

Commits

  1. Rename enable_incrementalsort for clarity