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 da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
