Re: boolean and bool in documentation

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm not excited about this. We accept "bool" and "boolean"
>> interchangeably, and it does not seem like an improvement for the
>> docs to use only one form. By that argument, somebody should go
>> through the docs and nuke every usage of "::" in favor of
>> SQL-standard CAST(...) notation, every usage of "float8"
>> in favor of DOUBLE PRECISION, every usage of "timestamptz" in
>> favor of the long form, etc etc.

> I'm not terribly excited about it either, but mostly because it seems
> like a lot of churn for a minimal gain, and it'll be consistent for
> about 6 months before somebody re-introduces a conflicting usage.

Yeah, that last is a really good point.

> I do not, on the other hand, believe that there's no point in being
> consistent about anything unless we're consistent about everything;
> that's a straw man.

That wasn't my argument; rather, I was saying that if someone presents
a patch for s/bool/boolean/g and we accept it, then logically we should
also accept patches for any of these other cases as well. I doubt that
we would, if only because of the carpal-tunnel angle. Does that mean
our policy is "we'll be consistent as long as it doesn't add too many
characters"? Ugh.

regards, tom lane