Re: renaming "storage parameters"

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Euler Taveira is arguing in an autovacuum thread that we should give
> "storage parameters" a different name; his argument is that
> "autovacuum_enabled" is not really a parameter that relates to storage.
> He is proposing "relation parameters".

> I am against the idea of renaming them, for two reasons: 1. it's a
> user-visible change that doesn't seem to buy a lot; 2. it's a tedious
> patch to write.

> Can I get some votes?

I agree with leaving them alone. "Storage" might not be exactly le mot
juste anymore but it still gives you a good idea what they're meant for;
in particular that they are targeted at implementation concerns rather
than SQL-level semantics of the table. Moving to a content-free name
like "relation parameter" in order to cover all possible uses doesn't
seem like it helps anyone understand anything better.

regards, tom lane