| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: System catalog documentation chapter |
| Date: | 2022-07-12 21:24:15 |
| Message-ID: | 1869011.1657661055@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> views.sgml is a pretty generic name for a chapter that just contains system
>> views.
> Yes, I struggled with that. What made me choose "views" is that the
> current name was catalogs.sgml, not syscatalogs.sgml. If is acceptable
> to use catalogs.sgml and sysviews.sgml?
"catalogs" isn't too confusable with user-defined objects, so I think
that name is fine --- and anyway it has decades of history so changing
it seems unwise.
We seem to have been trending towards less-abbreviated .sgml file names
over time, so personally I'd go for system-views.sgml.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-12 22:01:39 | Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-07-12 21:17:51 | Re: System catalog documentation chapter |