| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Williamson <gwilliamson39(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
| Date: | 2009-08-04 13:59:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20090804135932.GL23840@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com) wrote:
> >> My concern is "access_control_" is a bit long for prefixes,
> >> but "ac_" is too short to represent what it is doing.
>
> > pg_ac_? Still shorter than 'security_', uses the pg_ prefix, which we
> > use in a number of other places, and has 'ac' in it..
>
> I don't see anything wrong with "ac_". Short is good, and there isn't
> any other concept in the PG internals that it would conflict with.
> If there were, "pg_ac_" would surely not help to disambiguate.
Works for me.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-08-04 14:06:04 | Re: Alpha Releases: Docs? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-08-04 13:56:22 | Re: doing %-expansion in plpgsql RAISE USING |