On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Anyway, it seems that no one other than you and I is very excited >> about renaming this for whatever reason, so maybe we should leave it >> at that. > > I think not changing the name is a really bad decision, and I am > personally unhappy about it. I immediately agreed to your proposed > adjustment to the patch without really thinking that it mattered, > because it had no plausible downside, so why not? > > That's all I have to say about the matter. If it isn't obvious that > the name should be changed, based on what I've already said, it never > will be.
All in all, I don't think this can be a very productive discussion unless someone just pitches a equal or better name overall in terms of conciseness and descriptiveness. I'd rather optimize for those attributes. Old advice is old; that's the nature of the beast. The one benefit I can think of for name shuffling is avoiding accidental negation of the optimization when porting Postgres configuration from older clusters, and even then I don't think the rename-on-change strategy is a scalable one; a tuning-linting tool is probably the only scalable option if one is concerned about making sure that those forward-porting their configurations or managing multiple postgres versions don't shoot themselves in the foot. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
