| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: nomenclature |
| Date: | 2004-01-16 17:41:35 |
| Message-ID: | 871xpzx034.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> if you think about it, the "postmaster" is actually aptly named,
> since it is the process that sorts out the incoming connections and
> assigns them to backend processes ... just like the postmaster does
> with your mail ...
Right, hence the witty pun :-)
IMHO this whole debate is largely academic: it really wouldn't be
practical to start renaming components at this point, whether they are
perfectly named or not.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-01-16 17:43:24 | Re: cache control? |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-01-16 17:38:28 | Re: cache control? |