Re: Confusing terminology

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > 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.

What about "relation" vs. "table"?

CREATE TABLE foo(key integer);

ERROR: Relation 'foo' already exists

I realize the historical context of the word, but it flies in the face
of the language.

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com