Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name

Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > I thought about that, but is seems all our booleans could logically fall
> > into the category of being enabled/disabled. For add_missing_from, the
> > add word is so people realize that it is really _adding_ to the FROM
> > list, so I see it as different.
> >
> > Anyway, change committed. I can always change it back if people change
> > their mind.
>
> I suggest that the rule you've been (unconsciously) following is the
> following: parameters that form a verb phrase do not need an enable_ prefix.
> But parameters that form a noun phrase do or else they sound strange.
>
> Put another way, "all boolean parameters are verb phrases; if they're not then
> turn them into a verb phrase by prepending a verb like `enable'"
>
> I see a couple exceptions (debug_assertions, geqo) but mostly they seem to
> follow this pattern.
>
> I'm not sure that's a bad rule. Verbs sound nice when you read them:
>
> show_parser_stats true
> enable_hashjoin true
>
> Nouns sound stranger and more awkward:
>
> geqo true
> parser_stats true
> hashjoin true

Interesting analysis. No verb in there.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073