Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> Looking at similar functions it's clear they don't use the pg_postgres_
> prefix,
> like for example pg_conf_load_time. Should this if so be pg_start_time?
No, because it's not clear what start time you're talking about;
aside from the postmaster, this could plausibl
>Except it doesn't seem like users are confused. It is just someone in the
>ivory tower thinking they could be. It feels like make-work for a problem
>that doesn't actually exist.
Hello. I understand that this type of comment could be interpreted as
discouraging and detrimental to the developm
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:17 PM Maiquel Grassi wrote:
> >I can agree that pg_postmaster_ has the potential to be confusing to
> users, but
> >I agree that if we are to do anything it should be alias while
> maintaining the
> >old name for compatibility.
> >
> >Looking at similar functions it's cle
>I can agree that pg_postmaster_ has the potential to be confusing to users, but
>I agree that if we are to do anything it should be alias while maintaining the
>old name for compatibility.
>
>Looking at similar functions it's clear they don't use the pg_postgres_ prefix,
>like for example pg_conf_
> On 6 Nov 2024, at 20:28, Maiquel Grassi wrote:
>
> >This function has this name since 600da67fbe5e back from 2008.
> >Changing that 16 years later will break things.
>
> Certainly, there are more considerations to take into account
> than I initially realized. One possibility would be to creat
>This function has this name since 600da67fbe5e back from 2008.
>Changing that 16 years later will break things.
Certainly, there are more considerations to take into account
than I initially realized. One possibility would be to create an
alias (or synonym) for the function "pg_postmaster_start_t
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 12:05:11PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> The ease or difficulty of making the change in the server has no meaningful
> bearing on whether breaking this public API is warranted or not.
This function has this name since 600da67fbe5e back from 2008.
Changing that 16 years
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Maiquel Grassi
wrote:
> >> I suggest this change to simplify the terminology and make the function
> >> name more intuitive, as "postgres" directly refers to the database
> server.
> >> This seems more suitable to me.
>
> >Seems like an unnecessary change of a publ
>> I suggest this change to simplify the terminology and make the function
>> name more intuitive, as "postgres" directly refers to the database server.
>> This seems more suitable to me.
>Seems like an unnecessary change of a publicly facing feature. IMO
>stability wins out over any debatable imp
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 11:26 AM Maiquel Grassi
wrote:
> I suggest this change to simplify the terminology and make the function
> name more intuitive, as "postgres" directly refers to the database server.
> This seems more suitable to me.
>
Seems like an unnecessary change of a publicly facing fe
11 matches
Mail list logo
