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 The "pg_" naming scheme is obsolete because system and user namespaces are now isolated.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