From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Cc: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: getpid() function |
Date: | 2002-08-01 20:05:11 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0208011936590.6899-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway writes:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:01:52PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > Is there some common convention of names?
>
> No, there isn't (for example, pg_stat_backend_id() versus
> current_schema() -- or pg_get_viewdef() versus obj_description() ).
The "pg_" naming scheme is obsolete because system and user namespaces are
now isolated. Anything involving "get" is also redundant, IMHO, because
we aren't dealing with object-oriented things. Besides that, the
convention in SQL seems to be to use full noun phrases with words
separated by underscores.
So if "pg_get_viewdef" where reinvented today, by me, it would be called
"view_definition".
A whole 'nother issue is to use the right terms for the right things. For
example, the term "backend" is rather ambiguous and PostgreSQL uses it
differently from everyone else. Instead I would use "server process" when
referring to the PID.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-08-01 20:08:44 | Re: Schedule Jobs from within Postgresql db |
Previous Message | pgsql | 2002-08-01 19:41:15 | Re: matrix query? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-08-01 20:05:53 | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2002-08-01 20:02:00 | Re: Module Portability |