|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: System catalog documentation chapter|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> views.sgml is a pretty generic name for a chapter that just contains system
> Yes, I struggled with that. What made me choose "views" is that the
> current name was catalogs.sgml, not syscatalogs.sgml. If is acceptable
> to use catalogs.sgml and sysviews.sgml?
"catalogs" isn't too confusable with user-defined objects, so I think
that name is fine --- and anyway it has decades of history so changing
it seems unwise.
We seem to have been trending towards less-abbreviated .sgml file names
over time, so personally I'd go for system-views.sgml.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2022-07-12 22:01:39||Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2022-07-12 21:17:51||Re: System catalog documentation chapter|