|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Improving RLS planning|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On 10 November 2016 at 17:12, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Yeah, I think we'd be best off to avoid the bare term "security".
> > It's probably too late to change the RTE field name "securityQuals",
> > but maybe we could uniformly call those "security barrier quals" in
> > the comments. Then the basic terminology is that we have security
> > barrier views and row-level security both implemented on top of
> > security barrier quals, and we should be careful to use the right
> > one of those three terms in comments/documentation.
> +1 for that terminology and no renaming of fields.
|Next Message||Francisco Olarte||2016-11-11 15:03:06||Re: Why PostgreSQL doesn't implement a semi sync replication?|
|Previous Message||Peter Eisentraut||2016-11-11 14:03:55||Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.|