On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Paquier escribió:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Sorry the patch which I attached has wrong indent on pg_controldata.
>>>> > I have modified it and attached the new version patch.
>>>> Now that you send this patch, I am just recalling some recent email
>>>> from Tom arguing about avoiding to mix lower and upper-case characters
>>>> for a GUC parameter name:
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30569.1384917859@sss.pgh.pa.us
>>>>
>>>> To fullfill this requirement, could you replace walLogHints by
>>>> wal_log_hints in your patch? Thoughts from others?
>>>
>>> The issue is with the user-visible variables, not with internal
>>> variables implementing them. I think the patch is sane. (Other than
>>> the fact that it was posted as a patch-on-patch instead of
>>> patch-on-master).
>>
>> But spelling it the same way everywhere really improves greppability.
> Yep, finding all the code paths with a single keyword is usually a
> good thing. Attached is a purely-aesthetical patch that updates the
> internal variable name to wal_log_hints.
There are many GUC parameters other than wal_log_hints, that their
names are not the same as the names of their variables. We should
update also them?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao