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
