Stephen Frost wrote: > * 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.
OK, I'll go on with the "ac_" prefix. -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
