| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rewriting Free Space Map |
| Date: | 2008-03-17 18:29:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1205778581.4285.241.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> The idea that's becoming attractive to me while contemplating the
> >>> multiple-maps problem is that we should adopt something similar to
> >>> the old Mac OS idea of multiple "forks" in a relation.
>
> > Can we call them "maps" or "metadata maps"? "forks" sounds weird.
>
> I'm not wedded to "forks", that's just the name that was used in the
> only previous example I've seen. Classic Mac had a "resource fork"
> and a "data fork" within each file.
Layer? Slab? Sheet? Strata/um? Overlay?
Layer makes sense to me because of the way GIS and CAD systems work.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jochem van Dieten | 2008-03-17 18:45:06 | Re: Rewriting Free Space Map |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-03-17 18:28:37 | Re: Small bug in new backend build method |