Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Glen Parker wrote:
> [slightly reformatted for sanity]
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >Is this something we want in 8.3?  I am thinking visible/expired would
> > >be clearer terms.
> >
> > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible.
> > 
> > Should I resubmit with new names?
> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better to
> me.  What's wrong with "dead" and "live"?

With MVCC, my thought has always been that alive/dead is in the eye of
the beholder/backend.  For column names the user will see, I think we
need to use terms that we have used in the past.  If we want to move to
alive/dead, fine, but we then need to make sure we use consistent terms
in the documentation.

In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means
visible to no one.  I don't think live/dead can be as clear as
visible/expired, e.g. saying the tuple is "live to someone" seems
more awkward.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to