| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: procpid? |
| Date: | 2011-06-11 20:23:24 |
| Message-ID: | 201106112023.p5BKNOq03290@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 1:02 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby<jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
> >> It's damn annoying... enough so that I'd personally be in favor of creating a pid column that has the same data so we can deprecate
> >> procpid and eventually remove it...
> > well, if we will start changing bad picked names we will have a *lot*
> > of work to do... starting by the project's name ;)
>
> There is a difference between a project name and something that directly
> affects usability. +1 on fixing this. IMO, we don't create a new pid
> column, we just fix the problem. If we do it for 9.2, we have 18 months
> to communicate the change.
Uh, I am the first one I remember complaining about this so I don't see
why we should break compatibility for such a low-level problem.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-11 21:13:04 | Re: Identifying no-op length coercions |
| Previous Message | Dan Ports | 2011-06-11 20:03:24 | Re: Small SSI issues |