Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
Date: 2005-10-07 09:44:47
Message-ID: 4346438F.6090102@pse-consulting.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> As against that, changing them back now might just confuse matters even
> more. And I tend to agree with Neil's judgment that the new definitions
> are cleaner in themselves.

When talking about cleanliness of the definition, a name like
"pg_stat_file" seems quite unfortunate since in the presence of many
pg_stat_* statistics functions it sounds like a function dealing with
statistics files. The pg_*_file names were actually not discussed
exhaustively, originally posted as pg_file_*.

Taking from this, a clean naming convention would require
pg_backend_cancel (and pg_file_stat), extending this beta2->beta3
changes even more but leaving backward compatibility if the int
pg_cancel_backend isn't replaced, but accompanied by a clean bool version.

As Dave already pointed out, pgAdmin isn't affected itself, since we
need some additional functions anyway to remain 8.0 compatibility.

Regards,
Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Emil Briggs 2005-10-07 12:50:05 Some spinlock patch tests
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-07 09:36:27 Re: Shell script to extract a table from a plain text dump