On 9.5.2014 20:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I've done that a bit in the past. At one stage all my Windows animals > were some sort of bat. There's nothing magical about the names. It's > just a text field and can be whatever we like. I initially started with > animals because it seemed like a category that was likely to supply a > virtually endless list of names. > > We could maybe use more generic names to start with and then add > specialized names to extra animals on the same machine. But that's > really pretty much a hack, and something I would criticize if shown it > in a client's schema. If we want to be able to group machines on the > same box then we should have a database table or field that groups them > cleanly. That's going to require a bit of thought on how to do it with > minimal disruption.
I'm not really sure what would be the purpose of this information? I mean, why do we need to identify the animals running on the same machine? And what if they run in different VMs on the same hardware? And I certainly prefer animal names than e.g. animal001 and similar naming schemes. regards Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
