| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <joe(dot)conway(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: more RLS oversights |
| Date: | 2015-07-29 20:59:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaLwu7FkJ_w8XNdsbxBCf+=OCNpJH7UYQomYusA=dJGCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Joe Conway <joe(dot)conway(at)crunchydata(dot)com> wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 01:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think this reads a bit funny. What's a "POLICY USING" clause? I
>>> expect that translators will treat the two words POLICY USING as a
>>> single token, and the result is not going to make any sense.
>>>
>>> Maybe "in a policy's USING and WITH CHECK expressions", or perhaps "in
>>> policies's USING and WITH CHECK exprs", not sure.
>>
>> Yeah, I don't see why we would capitalize POLICY there.
>
> The equivalent message for functions is:
> ".. are not allowed in functions in FROM"
>
> So how does this sound:
> "... are not allowed in policies in USING and WITH CHECK expressions"
> or perhaps more simply:
> "... are not allowed in policies in USING and WITH CHECK"
Awkward. The "in policies in" phrasing is just hard to read. Why not
just "in policy expressions"? There's no third kind that does allow
these.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-07-29 21:04:58 | Re: more RLS oversights |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-29 20:59:03 | Re: dblink: add polymorphic functions. |