Re: renaming "storage parameters"

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> 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? If you think they should be renamed but to a
> different name than "relation parameters", please state what that is
> too.

-1.

Even if this is a good idea in general, it's a bad idea right now,
because we're trying to get 8.4 beta out the door.

I also don't see that the name storage parameters is all that
terrible. Surely the purpose of autovacuum is allow reuse of storage
space, no?

...Robert