On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Tom Lane wrote: > >>> The idea that's becoming attractive to me while contemplating the > >>> multiple-maps problem is that we should adopt something similar to > >>> the old Mac OS idea of multiple "forks" in a relation. > > > Can we call them "maps" or "metadata maps"? "forks" sounds weird. > > I'm not wedded to "forks", that's just the name that was used in the > only previous example I've seen. Classic Mac had a "resource fork" > and a "data fork" within each file.
Layer? Slab? Sheet? Strata/um? Overlay? Layer makes sense to me because of the way GIS and CAD systems work. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
