From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Stats for inheritance trees |
Date: | 2010-01-05 18:09:46 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071001051009r256fdcc9kadf76c1fdba51f0f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Another option would be to call it "inherits_ndistinct", or something
>> like that, which seems a little more readable, but not great: I don't
>> think there's going to be any getting around the need to RTFM before
>> setting these parameters.
>
> Well, the previously agreed-to syntax was SET STATISTICS DISTINCT.
> I don't see a problem with using "distinct" and "inherited_distinct"
> or something like that. "ndistinct" is probably not a good name to
> expose to non-programmers.
I like ndistinct because it makes the whole thing sound related to
statistics, which it is. But I'll do it your way unless there are
other votes.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-05 18:11:05 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Get rid of the need for manual maintenance of the initial |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-05 18:00:20 | Re: Stats for inheritance trees |