On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:26 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> writes: > > During some recent reviews, I came across some comments mentioning "toast" > > ... > > TOAST is a PostgreSQL acronym for "The Oversized-Attribute Storage > > Technique" [1]. > > It is indeed an acronym, but usages such as "toasting" are all over > our code and docs, as you see. I question whether changing that > to "TOASTing" improves readability. I agree that consistently > saying "TOAST table" not "toast table" is a good idea, but I'm > not quite convinced that removing every last lower-case occurrence > is a win, especially in these combined forms. >
Hi, thanks for the reply. How about I reduce the scope by only tackling the uncontroversial stuff, and leave all those "combined forms" for another day? Attached is the reduced patch for changes to the documentation. > > - "toasted" becomes "TOASTed". > > - "toastable" becomes "TOAST-able" > > Those two choices seem inconsistent... > > > - "untoasted" becomes "un-TOASTed" > > - "detoasted" is unchanged (and so is "detoast") > > Hm, there seems a risk of confusion between "not toasted" (a > statement of fact about the contents of a Datum) versus "detoasting" > (the act of expanding a toasted datum to full form). I'd prefer > to say "not toasted" than "untoasted" because the latter feels like > it could also mean "detoasted". (And as I write this para, I'm > having a hard time wanting to upcase the words, which reinforces > my doubts about s/toast/TOAST/g.) ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v2-0001-TOAST-not-toast.patch
Description: Binary data
