Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Glen Parker wrote: > > [slightly reformatted for sanity] > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would > > >be clearer terms. > > > > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. > > > > Should I resubmit with new names? > > I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better to > me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"?
With MVCC, my thought has always been that alive/dead is in the eye of the beholder/backend. For column names the user will see, I think we need to use terms that we have used in the past. If we want to move to alive/dead, fine, but we then need to make sure we use consistent terms in the documentation. In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means visible to no one. I don't think live/dead can be as clear as visible/expired, e.g. saying the tuple is "live to someone" seems more awkward. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
