Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for new SET variables for optimizer costs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for new SET variables for optimizer costs
Date: 2000-02-05 23:31:23
Message-ID: 16041.949793483@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Any chance of prefixing the 'set' variable names with 'PG_' or 'PG_OPT_' or
> something similar? Or doing something else to differentiate them from
> user-declared SQL variables?

I see no need to do that, since the *only* place these names exist is
in the SET command (and its friends SHOW and RESET), and SET exists only
to set system control variables. There are no user-declared SQL
variables.

The names are quite long and underscore-filled enough without adding
unnecessary prefixes, IMHO ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris 2000-02-06 00:21:52 Re: Status of inheritance-changing patch
Previous Message Philip Warner 2000-02-05 23:27:28 Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for new SET variables for optimizer costs