On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> The idea that's becoming attractive to me while contemplating the
> >>> multiple-maps problem is that we should adopt something similar to
> >>> the old Mac OS idea of multiple "forks" in a relation.
>
> > Can we call them "maps" or "metadata maps"? "forks" sounds weird.
>
> I'm not wedded to "forks", that's just the name that was used in the
> only previous example I've seen. Classic Mac had a "resource fork"
> and a "data fork" within each file.
Layer? Slab? Sheet? Strata/um? Overlay?
Layer makes sense to me because of the way GIS and CAD systems work.
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
