| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch |
| Date: | 2000-06-26 03:36:12 |
| Message-ID: | 11936.961990572@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I'm wondering what other people think about the naming. Firstly, it's my
> feeling that TABLEOID would be more in line with the general conventions.
No strong feeling either way. The old-line Postgres naming conventions
would suggest CLASSOID or RELATIONOID, but I sure wouldn't propose
RELATIONOID.
> Secondly, maybe we ought to make the name less susceptible to collision by
> choosing a something like _CLASSOID (or whatever).
No, I don't like that. If we're going to do this at all then the name
ought to be consistent with the names of existing system attributes,
and those have no underscore decoration.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-06-26 03:36:48 | Re: CLASSOID patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-26 03:31:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results! |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-06-26 03:36:48 | Re: CLASSOID patch |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-06-26 03:24:56 | Re: CLASSOID patch |