On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:46:21PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >On another naming note; the naming convention for system stuff has
> >always driven me nuts. Some the letter prefix (ie: tab for tables) in
> >front of every field name, with no underscores or anything. Extensive
> >use of abbreviations that you need to remember (ie: indnatts, indexprs,
> >indpred). No use of underscores (indisunique). Yet the view and table
> >names do use underscores.
>
> I agree the naming conventions for system catalog columns is less than
> optimal, but it seems a net loss to rename columns that already exist
> (given the amount of code that would need to be updated, both within the
> tree and in admin utilities and the like). Renaming all the system
> catalogs and providing backward compatibility views would mean you'd
> only need to modify the PG source, although of course those
> modifications would be pretty time-consuming...
>
> In any case, that's no reason not to try for better names in newly-added
> system objects.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting renaming anything in any of the
existing pg_catalog objects. I'm suggesting creating a new, easier to
use set of views that would sit on top of pg_catalog.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"