On 2/25/15 5:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>> How did that happen? And how could it possibly work?
>>>
>>>>> It probably doesn't, and the reason nobody has noticed is that the
>>>>> security label stuff has fewer users than I have fingers (and those
>>>>> people aren't using provider names that would cause anything interesting
>>>>> to happen).
>>>
>>>> The BDR code has recently started using security labels as a place to
>>>> store table-specific data. That widens its use a fair bit ... and most
>>>> likely, other extensions will also start using them as soon as they
>>>> realize that it can be used for stuff other than actual security labels.
>>>
>>> Yeah? Would they be OK with redefining the provider field as "name",
>>> or would the length limit be an issue?
>>
>> Nah, it's fine. The provider name used there is "bdr".
>
> Agreed, the provider field should be fine as a name field. Not that I
> expect it to be an issue, but I'd definitely like to keep the label
> field as text as those can definitely be longer (the very simply example
> included in the security label docs is over half the length of a name
> field already..). Now if we increased name to 128 characters...
+1 on 128/256 character names.
> /me runs and hides.
/stands brazenly in the open and volunteers to try it if I don't get
clobbered within seconds.
--
- David Steele
david@pgmasters.net