Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27196.1423928717@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 08:52:56AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> BTW, I'm not all that thrilled with the "deserialized object" terminology. >>> I found myself repeatedly tripping up on which form was serialized and >>> which de-. If anyone's got a better naming idea I'm willing to adopt it. >> My first thought is that we should form some kind of TOAST-like >> backronym, like Serialization Avoidance Loading and Access Device >> (SALAD) or Break-up, Read, Edit, Assemble, and Deposit (BREAD). I >> don't think there is anything per se wrong with the terms >> serialization and deserialization; indeed, I used the same ones in the >> parallel-mode stuff. But they are fairly general terms, so it might >> be nice to have something more specific that applies just to this >> particular usage. > The words that sprung to mind for me were: packed/unpacked. Trouble is that we're already using "packed" with a specific connotation in that same area of the code, namely for short-header varlena values. (See pg_detoast_datum_packed() etc.) So I don't think this will work. But maybe a different adjective? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: