Re: Rename withCheckOptions to insertedCheckClauses

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> >> Also, these were added in 9.4, so introducing this many differences
> >> between 9.4 and 9.5+ will make back-patching harder.
>
> > That's certainly true, but we don't want current or future hackers to be
> > confused either.
>
> Yes. I do not think that we should stick with badly chosen names just
> because of back-patching concerns. By that argument, we should never
> fix any erroneous comments either.
>
> Whether these particular names are improvements is, of course, a fit
> subject for debate. I have to agree that I don't feel like we've quite
> hit on le mot juste yet.

I've gone ahead and at least removed the withCheckOptions empty-list
from being written out as part of Query for 9.5 and HEAD, and bumped
catversion accordingly.

I came to realize that ModifyTable actually is planned to be used for
parallel query and therefore the list for that needs to stay, along with
support for reading the WithCheckOption node in.

Thanks!

Stephen