| From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Stark *EXTERN*" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Don Baccus" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: leakproof |
| Date: | 2012-02-20 08:57:00 |
| Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2077EC713@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
> I suspect this is wrong for similar reasons as "pure" but I'll throw
> it out there: "hermetic"
I personally have no problem with "leakproof", but if it does not tickle
the right associations with many people:
What about "secure"? It is also not self-explanatory, but it might give
people the idea that it's more a problem of restricting access to
information
than anything else.
On the downside, "security" has been over- and abused so much already.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-20 08:59:25 | Re: wal_buffers |
| Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2012-02-20 08:55:52 | Re: leakproof |