| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Date: | 2011-11-15 18:55:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAFNqd5WR1+PZ1Nu7_Jz=zG5T5u+vTECss+uwBBrZyxOwUwvP9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> "nondeletable" is surely terrible, since they may well have got into
> this state by being deleted. "nonremovable" is better, but still not
> great.
Bit of brain storm, including looking over to terminology used for
garbage collection:
- stillreferenceable
- notyetremovable
- referenceable
- reachable
Perhaps those suggest some option that is a bit less horrible? I
think I like referenceable best, of those.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-11-15 19:01:34 | Re: ISN was: Core Extensions relocation |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-11-15 18:53:33 | Re: ToDo: pg_backup - using a conditional DROP |