Re: Rewriting Free Space Map

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 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.
> 
> Don't think I like "maps" though, as (a) that prejudges what the
> alternate forks might be used for, and (b) the name fails to be
> inclusive of the data fork.  Other suggestions anyone?

Segment?  Section?  Module?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate