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: (view raw or whole 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


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 © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group