| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Naming of pg_checksums |
| Date: | 2019-05-07 03:50:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20190507035017.GL1499@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 01:56:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is there a reason pg_checksums is plural and not singular, i.e.,
> pg_checksum? I know it is being renamed for PG 12. It might have
> needed to be plural when it was pg_verify_checksums.
Because it applies to checksums to many pages first, and potentially
to more things than data checksums in the future if we want to extend
it with more checksum-related things? In short I'd like to think that
the plural is just but fine. If somebody wishes to do again a
renaming, that's fine by me as well but I don't think the current name
is an issue.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-07 04:06:05 | Re: Identity columns should own only one sequence |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2019-05-07 03:43:25 | Re: Do you see any problems with this procedure for Old Master rebuild as a Slave upon switchover ? |