X-Original-To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6499F474E44 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27586 invoked by uid 0); 21 Mar 2003 10:04:00 -0000 Received: from p3E9E7098.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (62.158.112.152) by mail.gmx.net (mp021-rz3) with SMTP; 21 Mar 2003 10:04:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:04:41 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@peter.localdomain To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Row vs. tuple In-Reply-To: <25320.1047690393@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200303/35 X-Sequence-Number: 1713 Tom Lane writes: > Well, "row version" isn't a particularly standard term either. I'd > prefer a one-word term. I think "row version" is the only logical and self-explanatory term that can be derived from "row" and "multiversion concurrency control". And even though it's two words, it's just as short as most other terms we could come up with. But more importantly, it should get the message across to most users, while most other suggestions would simply be another ambiguous word. > (Anyone know what Oracle calls 'em?) I don't think Oracle really has this concept, because their multiversioning is not implemented with a nonoverwriting storage manager. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net