From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 18:25:18 |
Message-ID: | 20080317182518.GI8834@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:46PM -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.
>
> Don't think I like "maps" though, as (a) that prejudges what the
> alternate forks might be used for, and (b) the name fails to be
> inclusive of the data fork. Other suggestions anyone?
Segment? Section? Module?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-03-17 18:28:37 | Re: Small bug in new backend build method |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-17 18:23:02 | Re: krb_match_realm patch |