2011/6/12 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > 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.
I agree. This is at least a use-case for something^Wfeature like 'create synonym', allowing smooth end-user's application upgrade on schema update. I am not claiming that we need that, it just seems a good usecase for column alias/synonym. > > -- > 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 > -- Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
