On 6/2/17 16:44, Petr Jelinek wrote: > However, I am not sure about the bgw_name_extra. I think I would have > preferred keeping full bgw_name field which would be used where full > name is needed and bgw_type where only the worker type is used. The > concatenation just doesn't sit well with me, especially if it requires > the bgw_name_extra to start with space.
I see your point. There are also some i18n considerations to think through. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
