* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
