On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Tom Lane wrote: > >>> The idea that's becoming attractive to me while contemplating > >>> the multiple-maps problem is that we should adopt something > >>> similar to the old Mac OS idea of multiple "forks" in a > >>> relation. > > > Can we call them "maps" or "metadata maps"? "forks" sounds weird. > > I'm not wedded to "forks", that's just the name that was used in the > only previous example I've seen. Classic Mac had a "resource fork" > and a "data fork" within each file. > > Don't think I like "maps" though, as (a) that prejudges what the > alternate forks might be used for, and (b) the name fails to be > inclusive of the data fork. Other suggestions anyone?
Segment? Section? Module? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
