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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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