Re: Rename Function: pg_postmaster_start_time

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:17 PM Maiquel Grassi <grassi(at)hotmail(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:

> >I can agree that pg_postmaster_ has the potential to be confusing to
> users, but
> >I agree that if we are to do anything it should be alias while
> maintaining the
> >old name for compatibility.
> >
> >Looking at similar functions it's clear they don't use the pg_postgres_
> prefix,
> >like for example pg_conf_load_time. Should this if so be pg_start_time?
>
The name pg_conf_load_time doesn't seem that confusing to me. However,
> it doesn't provide clarity on which specific configuration file or which
> configuration
> was "reloaded,"
>

Since it reloads "all" of them such specificity would not be warranted.

This is actually a problem for pg_start_time though, especially if it stays
in the table "Session Information Functions" since one would rightly assume
it returns the time this client-session process started, not the postmaster
process.

The idea of using aliases would be a long-term solution, if you agree with
> me, of course, that we don't write PostgreSQL for ourselves, and good
> names should
> always be considered with the end users in mind.
>

Except it doesn't seem like users are confused. It is just someone in the
ivory tower thinking they could be. It feels like make-work for a problem
that doesn't actually exist.

So even agreeing with you that naming for comprehension by users is
important this change doesn't seem necessary. If they see the name in the
documentation and are confused by the terminology "postmaster" maybe we can
cross-reference the glossary where it is defined.

This is a function that is likely often executed in third-party scripts and
not that often executed manually. That further increases the burden of
change, especially relative to memorization burden for a user typing it in
manually.

David J.