Re: procpid?

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Cédric Villemain
<cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2011/6/12 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Because it is a very real problem with an easy fix. We have 18 months to
>>> publicize that fix. I mean really? This is a no-brainer.
>>
>> I really don't see what the big deal with calling it the process PID
>> rather than just the PID is.  Changing something like this forces
>> pgAdmin and every other application out there that is built to work
>> with PG to make a code change to keep working with PG.  That seems
>> like pushing a lot of unnecessary work on other people for what is
>> basically a minor cosmetic issue.
>
> I agree.
> This is at least a use-case for something^Wfeature like 'create
> synonym', allowing smooth end-user's application upgrade on schema
> update. I am not claiming that we need that, it just seems a good
> usecase for column alias/synonym.

I had the same thought. I'm not sure that this particular example
would be worthwhile even if we had a column synonym facility. But at
least if we were bent on changing it we could do it without breaking
things.

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