On Tuesday 26 December 2006 23:12, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > >> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better
> > >> to me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"?
> > >
> > > In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means
> > > visible to no one.
> >
> > Um ... surely, visibility is in the eye of the beholder (no smiley).
> >
> > I don't have an immediate suggestion for better terminology, but IMHO
> > the whole point of visible/invisible terminology is that it depends on
> > who's looking. Dead and live seem to convey a more appropriate air
> > of finality.
> >
> > "Expired" is OK as a synonym for "dead", but there is no thesaurus
> > anywhere in the world that will suggest it as an antonym for "visible".
>
> OK, so we need new terminology and we need it to be used consistenly in
> our documentation, whatever we choose.
The current terminology of live and dead is already used in many places in the
documentation and in userspace; mostly around the need for maintainance of
dead tuples within tables, reindex cleaning up dead pages, and even in the
vacuum commands output (n dead tuples cannot be removed yet). Given this
patch came from userland, istm people are comfortable enough with this
terminology there is no need to change it.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
