On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Uh, I am the first one I remember complaining about this so I don't see >> why we should break compatibility for such a low-level problem. > > Because it is a very real problem with an easy fix. We have 18 months to > publicize that fix. I mean really? This is a no-brainer.
I really don't see what the big deal with calling it the process PID rather than just the PID is. Changing something like this forces pgAdmin and every other application out there that is built to work with PG to make a code change to keep working with PG. That seems like pushing a lot of unnecessary work on other people for what is basically a minor cosmetic issue. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
