Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>>> * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai@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.
>
> Works for me.
OK, I'll go on with the "ac_" prefix.
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
