Re: getpid() function

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org>
Cc: Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-08-01T20:05:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
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The "pg_" naming scheme is obsolete because system and user namespaces are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.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net