Re: Proposal: Change of pg_trigger.tg_enabled and adding

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Change of pg_trigger.tg_enabled and adding
Date: 2007-01-26 00:58:39
Message-ID: 45B9523F.9080101@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/25/2007 7:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 1 fires always
> 0 fires never
> N fires in "Normal" mode
> R fires in "Replica" mode
> other letters available for other future mode values?
>
> If you consistently think of "origin" and "replica" modes then the
> original proposal is better (using both 0 and O would be Real Bad),
> but your use of "normal" and "replica" in the followup makes me wonder
> which terminology is more common.

Yeah, I tried for a long time to stay away from terms like master and
slave ... but in the end people don't understand you if you talk about
origin and subscriber or replica. That's how this inconsistent
terminology slipped into my vocabulary.

I personally don't care about the particular values. I could live with
A, B, C, D. If people find 1, 0, N, R more explanatory, fine.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Troy 2007-01-26 01:42:32 Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2007-01-26 00:49:46 Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp