On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 03:21:36PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:44 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > ... or we could shorten those file names. I recall an episode
> > awhile ago where somebody complained that their version of "tar"
> > couldn't handle some of the path names in our tarball, so
> > keeping things from getting to carpal-tunnel-inducing lengths
> > does have its advantages.
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:51 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > Not bad, but I would instead shorten the names to detach-[1234] or
> > detach-partition-[1234]. The marginal value of the second word is low, and
> > the third word helps even less.
Better still, the numbers can change to something descriptive:
detach-1 => detach-visibility
detach-2 => detach-fk-FOO
detach-3 => detach-incomplete
detach-4 => detach-fk-BAR
I don't grasp the difference between -2 and -4 enough to suggest concrete FOO
and BAR words.
> Alright, CC'ing Alvaro who added the long names to see if he wants to
> consider that.