On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 09:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 8:39 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I think the problem is not so much the underscore as the
> >> inconsistency. You've got "pub", "gen", and "cols" run together,
> >> but then you feel a need to separate "type"?
>
> > It was easy to read and to avoid getting a single word too long.
> > However, I do understand your concern. so will change it to
> > pubgencolstype unless you or someone prefers pubgencols?
>
> I think I'd vote for "pubgencols". I don't see what the "_type"
> suffix is supposed to convey --- there is nothing very type-y about
> this.
I believe simply renaming the catalog column to 'pubgencols' should
suffice. We can keep the internal structure name as 'pubgencols_type'
as it is not exposed, unless you prefer to update it to 'pubgencols'
as well.
Regards,
Vignesh
