| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com>, Postgresql Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and |
| Date: | 2006-12-27 03:43:27 |
| Message-ID: | 11314.1167191007@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better to
>> me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"?
> In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means
> visible to no one.
Um ... surely, visibility is in the eye of the beholder (no smiley).
I don't have an immediate suggestion for better terminology, but IMHO
the whole point of visible/invisible terminology is that it depends on
who's looking. Dead and live seem to convey a more appropriate air
of finality.
"Expired" is OK as a synonym for "dead", but there is no thesaurus
anywhere in the world that will suggest it as an antonym for "visible".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-27 04:10:10 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-27 03:33:14 | Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-27 04:10:10 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-27 03:33:14 | Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and |