On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: >>> BTW, regarding to the statement support for security barrier views, >>> the following syntax might be more consistent with existing ones: >>> CREATE VIEW view_name WITH ( param [=value]) AS query ... ; >>> rather than >>> CREATE SECURITY VIEW view_name AS query ...; >>> >>> Any comments? > >> I think I mildly prefer CREATE SECURITY VIEW to the parameter syntax >> in this case, but I don't hate the other one. > > The WITH idea seems a bit more future-proof; in particular it would > easily accommodate specifying a security type, if we decide we need > various levels of leak-proof-ness.
Or other kinds of view options. I'm not going to argue against that too forcefully, since I've advocated introducing that sort of syntax elsewhere. I think it's mostly that I thought this feature might be significant enough to merit a syntax that would make it a little more prominent, but perhaps not. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
