* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> >> My concern is "access_control_" is a bit long for prefixes,
> >> but "ac_" is too short to represent what it is doing.
>
> > pg_ac_? Still shorter than 'security_', uses the pg_ prefix, which we
> > use in a number of other places, and has 'ac' in it..
>
> I don't see anything wrong with "ac_". Short is good, and there isn't
> any other concept in the PG internals that it would conflict with.
> If there were, "pg_ac_" would surely not help to disambiguate.
Works for me.
Thanks,
Stephen