Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: leakproof

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Subject: Re: leakproof
Date: 2012-02-22 23:30:37
Message-ID: 27924.1329953437@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 02/22/2012 04:29 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
>> As the developer of veil I feel marginally qualified to bikeshed here:
>> how about "silent"?  A silent function being one that will not blab.

> I also made this suggestion later in the day.

SILENT isn't a bad idea.  It seems to lead the mind in the right
direction, or at least not encourage people to guess the wrong meaning.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-02-22 23:36:48
Subject: Re: SSI rw-conflicts and 2PC
Previous:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-02-22 23:17:53
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group