| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: procpid? |
| Date: | 2011-06-11 17:37:38 |
| Message-ID: | 4DF3A7E2.3020305@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/11/2011 1:02 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby<jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
>> It's damn annoying... enough so that I'd personally be in favor of creating a pid column that has the same data so we can deprecate
>> procpid and eventually remove it...
> well, if we will start changing bad picked names we will have a *lot*
> of work to do... starting by the project's name ;)
There is a difference between a project name and something that directly
affects usability. +1 on fixing this. IMO, we don't create a new pid
column, we just fix the problem. If we do it for 9.2, we have 18 months
to communicate the change.
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-11 17:40:54 | Re: Identifying no-op length coercions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-11 17:29:27 | REL9_1_STABLE branch created |