Re: Naming of pg_checksums

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Naming of pg_checksums
Date: 2019-05-07 20:46:51
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZyvqSyQ6FvH5vC=SmNgbfgvTJCFqMKYPTxn0TqdNA5yg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:56 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Is there a reason pg_checksums is plural and not singular, i.e.,
> pg_checksum? I know it is being renamed for PG 12. It might have
> needed to be plural when it was pg_verify_checksums.

That is a good question, IMHO. I am not sure whether pg_checksum is
better, but I'm pretty sure it's not worse.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2019-05-07 20:48:09 Re: make \d pg_toast.foo show its indices
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-05-07 20:44:53 Re: make \d pg_toast.foo show its indices