On 9.5.2014 20:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I've done that a bit in the past. At one stage all my Windows animals
> were some sort of bat. There's nothing magical about the names. It's
> just a text field and can be whatever we like. I initially started with
> animals because it seemed like a category that was likely to supply a
> virtually endless list of names.
> We could maybe use more generic names to start with and then add
> specialized names to extra animals on the same machine. But that's
> really pretty much a hack, and something I would criticize if shown it
> in a client's schema. If we want to be able to group machines on the
> same box then we should have a database table or field that groups them
> cleanly. That's going to require a bit of thought on how to do it with
> minimal disruption.

I'm not really sure what would be the purpose of this information? I
mean, why do we need to identify the animals running on the same
machine? And what if they run in different VMs on the same hardware?

And I certainly prefer animal names than e.g. animal001 and similar
naming schemes.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to