"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Mar 4, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>>> What about using the PL terminology here, and calling the property
>>> 'trusted' (default false, so you have to be a superuser to load them)?
>> Hmm. I see your point, but "trusted" seems like it could just as easily
>> be misunderstood. Anybody have any other opinions about the color of
>> that bikeshed?
> The trusted/untrusted differentiation confuses me every single time I try to
> remember which is which. So how about requires_superuser or
> install_as_superuser?
I think install_as_superuser might be read to mean "we will run the
script as superuser, whether the calling user is or not". Which in
fact is a facility that might exist someday, making the chance of
confusion even greater.
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"?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
