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.
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
