On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 1:38 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvhe...@kurilemu.de> writes: > > No review, but apparently "uniquify" is more widely accepted than > > "uniqueify".
> Personally I'd write "unique-ify", seeing that neither of the forms > without the dash are considered good English. Of course, if you > need to make identifiers out of this, that solution doesn't work; > but you could just avoid the construction --- say, "make_path_unique" > rather than "uniquify_path". Some 'git grep' work shows that, currently on master, we commonly use the form "unique-ify" (with the dash) and its variants, such as: unique-ify, unique-ified, unique-ification, and unique-ifying. $ git grep -in 'unique-if' | wc -l 50 There is one instance of the form "uniquify": planner.c:5107: * check). We can uniquify these tuples simply by just taking And one instance of "uniqueify" (without the dash): jsonb_util.c:65:static void uniqueifyJsonbObject() Given this, I'd prefer to stick with "unique-ify", for consistency with the majority usage in the codebase. In this patch, the only instance that doesn't follow the "unique-ify" form is the macro IS_UNIQUEIFIED_REL, as dashes are not allowed in C identifiers. Maybe a better alternative is IS_RELATION_UNIQUE? Any suggestions? Thanks Richard
