On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Another option would be to call it "inherits_ndistinct", or something >>> like that, which seems a little more readable, but not great: I don't >>> think there's going to be any getting around the need to RTFM before >>> setting these parameters. >> >> Well, the previously agreed-to syntax was SET STATISTICS DISTINCT. >> I don't see a problem with using "distinct" and "inherited_distinct" >> or something like that. "ndistinct" is probably not a good name to >> expose to non-programmers. > > I like ndistinct because it makes the whole thing sound related to > statistics, which it is. But I'll do it your way unless there are > other votes.
It's probably also worth noting that the reason I used DISTINCT originally is because it's already a keyword. That's a moot point here. But as I say I'll stick with your names unless there are contravening votes. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
