| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: getpid() function |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 04:23:25 |
| Message-ID: | 26897.1028262205@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I can rename backend_pid if people want. I just made it consistent
> with the other functions in that docs area. Comments?
I'd go for pg_backend_pid, I think. It's not an SQL standard function
and certainly never will be, so some sort of prefix seems appropriate.
Perhaps a more relevant question is why are we cluttering the namespace
with any such function at all? What's the use case for it? We've
gotten along fine without one so far, and I don't really think that we
*ought* to be exposing random bits of internal implementation details
at the SQL level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Harter | 2002-08-02 04:28:49 | Temporal Database |
| Previous Message | C. Miller | 2002-08-02 03:28:57 | Import from MS SQL Server? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-02 04:30:38 | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-02 04:07:41 | Re: cvs checkout pgsql |