| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Operator class group proposal |
| Date: | 2006-12-18 16:49:30 |
| Message-ID: | 9671.1166460570@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> But "opfamid" is a really unfortunate name, because it looks way too
>> much like it's supposed to be the ID of the family itself, rather than
>> of the index AM it's associated with.
> I think by convention it is clear that we are talking about opf -- amid,
> opfmethod imho removes the connex to amid so I wouldn't do it.
I think that's fairly clear when you look at the catalog definition by
itself, but when you come across the name in running code it's likely to
be confusing. And it's not like "amid" is widely used to refer to index
access method OIDs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-18 16:51:38 | Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-18 16:45:30 | Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file |