From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Confusing terminology |
Date: | 2002-01-18 21:29:15 |
Message-ID: | 200201182129.g0ILTFH23470@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > After receiving a connection request, the postmaster spawns
> > a backend process to handle that client session.
>
> This is OK, because it's true: There's a new process and it's at the
> backend side of the wire. (Actually, a session is something that exists
> between a client and a server.) What I don't like is language like "how
> many backends are active on this database?" -- It's one: PostgreSQL. It
> would be correct to say "how many (PostgreSQL) backend *processes* are
> active...", or maybe just "how many clients are connected to this
> database".
Or how many sessions. That seems to be the best wording unless you want
to highlight the existance of backend processes.
I am not sure I agree that there is only one backend running, well maybe
I see your point but it seems a little confusing. We used the term
'backend' with Ingres and it always meant your backend process.
> > Maybe it's time for someone to prepare an "official" glossary that sets
> > out all these terms carefully, so that people will have something to
> > refer to when they're trying to pick a word to use.
>
> Yeah, I think I'd like to set something like this up as part of the
> program message style guide that I've talked about recently.
There is a crude attempt in the FAQ. Maybe we can add there.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2002-01-18 21:45:16 | Re: Confusing terminology |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-01-18 21:17:31 | Re: Confusing terminology |