On 2/25/15 5:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>> How did that happen? And how could it possibly work?
>>>>> It probably doesn't, and the reason nobody has noticed is that the
>>>>> security label stuff has fewer users than I have fingers (and those
>>>>> people aren't using provider names that would cause anything interesting
>>>>> to happen).
>>>> The BDR code has recently started using security labels as a place to
>>>> store table-specific data.  That widens its use a fair bit ... and most
>>>> likely, other extensions will also start using them as soon as they
>>>> realize that it can be used for stuff other than actual security labels.
>>> Yeah?  Would they be OK with redefining the provider field as "name",
>>> or would the length limit be an issue?
>> Nah, it's fine.  The provider name used there is "bdr".
> Agreed, the provider field should be fine as a name field.  Not that I
> expect it to be an issue, but I'd definitely like to keep the label
> field as text as those can definitely be longer (the very simply example
> included in the security label docs is over half the length of a name
> field already..).  Now if we increased name to 128 characters...

+1 on 128/256 character names.

> /me runs and hides.

/stands brazenly in the open and volunteers to try it if I don't get
clobbered within seconds.

- David Steele

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to