| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Extensions Question |
| Date: | 2011-03-04 19:26:28 |
| Message-ID: | m21v2mu1p7.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> requires_superuser isn't bad, but I think I'd rather avoid "requires"
> here since we're also using that terminology for prerequisite
> extensions. How about "must_be_superuser"?
Sorry to continue painting in old fashioned colors, but if we're not
going to reuse established terms from our “glossary”, then I'd better
see us using just "superuser" here.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-04 19:43:26 | Re: Quick Extensions Question |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-03-04 19:05:00 | Re: file signature for files that make up postgres database |