>I can agree that pg_postmaster_ has the potential to be confusing to users, but
>I agree that if we are to do anything it should be alias while maintaining the
>old name for compatibility.
>
>Looking at similar functions it's clear they don't use the pg_postgres_ prefix,
>like for example pg_conf_load_time. Should this if so be pg_start_time?
The name pg_conf_load_time doesn't seem that confusing to me. However,
it doesn't provide clarity on which specific configuration file or which configuration
was "reloaded," so depending on the user sitting behind the computer, it could
indeed, be considered confusing as well. I wouldn't know how to suggest a better
alias for this function, "pg_conf_load_time." I like to always remind that PostgreSQL
is written for users, not for us. The current names and terms are very clear to us, actually,
extremely clear. For someone here in the hacker community, saying "postgres" or
"postmaster" is irrelevant — we are all more than advanced users of PostgreSQL, but we
are the minority of minorities within the range of users worldwide who use PostgreSQL.
Well, in that sense, I honestly only thought of a better and less confusing name for
"pg_postmaster_start_time." For the other functions that may have poor names,
I haven't done an assessment. I don't have a suggestion for your point, maybe someone
else does. The idea of using aliases would be a long-term solution, if you agree with
me, of course, that we don't write PostgreSQL for ourselves, and good names should
always be considered with the end users in mind.
Maiquel
