Re: enable_constraint_exclusion GUC name

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

--
greg