| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else? |
| Date: | 2021-11-24 19:10:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobwO+0pRTPUpASCqeoyybK7BrCoUdQCDshfdT=YDk_ysg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:54 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> I don't object to an underscore, but it looks a bit uglier to me.
> AFAIK the main problem with uuid-ossp was that it is used as an identifier, so
> it required quoting, which won't be the case with this process name.
I agree, and for that reason I would prefer no separator, or a space.
That's what we do with other processes, and I think it's fine.
It's worth thinking too about the fact that we may want to rename
functions, adjust comments, etc. Each of those things has their own
conventions. For example consider StartupProcessMain(). If we decide
to call this the WAL replay process, I suppose that is going to become
WALReplayMain(). For sure it's not going to be come WAL-Replay-Main().
But what displays in the 'ps' status should look like what we do in
other cases.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-24 19:44:38 | Re: Split xlog.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-24 19:07:34 | Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else? |