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 The "pg_" naming scheme is obsolete because system and user namespaces are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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
