Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070911030537o59d81c15j627a7e795d3499a6@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> >> > If this is the case, then I think we could just decide that their name >> >> > is reloptions due to hysterical reasons and be done with it. >> >> >> >> Yeah. It's particularly unfortunate that we call them "reloptions" in >> >> the code but "storage parameters" in the documentation. Neither is a >> >> particularly good name, and having two different ones is extra-poor. >> >> But I'm fine with leaving the names as they are and moving on, if no >> >> one objects too much. Speak now or don't complain about it after I >> >> write the patch! >> > >> > Maybe after we move to Git we can rename them in the code? >> >> I'm OK with renaming it before I start working on the main patch, or >> after it's committed, or never. I just don't want to have to rebase >> it in the middle. > > I think "after we move to Git" goes well after "after your patch is > committed", so we're OK. Or if not, then it's my own fault. :-) ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: