Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Neil Conway writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:01:52PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > > > Is there some common convention of names? > > > > No, there isn't (for example, pg_stat_backend_id() versus > > current_schema() -- or pg_get_viewdef() versus obj_description() ). > > The "pg_" naming scheme is obsolete because system and user namespaces are > now isolated. Anything involving "get" is also redundant, IMHO, because > we aren't dealing with object-oriented things. Besides that, the > convention in SQL seems to be to use full noun phrases with words > separated by underscores. > > So if "pg_get_viewdef" where reinvented today, by me, it would be called > "view_definition". > > A whole 'nother issue is to use the right terms for the right things. For > example, the term "backend" is rather ambiguous and PostgreSQL uses it > differently from everyone else. Instead I would use "server process" when > referring to the PID.
Yes, I wanted to match libpq's function, which is the way people used to get the pid. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
