Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 6/11/2011 1:02 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby<j...@nasby.net> wrote: > >> It's damn annoying... enough so that I'd personally be in favor of > >> creating a pid column that has the same data so we can deprecate > >> procpid and eventually remove it... > > well, if we will start changing bad picked names we will have a *lot* > > of work to do... starting by the project's name ;) > > There is a difference between a project name and something that directly > affects usability. +1 on fixing this. IMO, we don't create a new pid > column, we just fix the problem. If we do it for 9.2, we have 18 months > to communicate the change.
Uh, I am the first one I remember complaining about this so I don't see why we should break compatibility for such a low-level problem. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
