I did realize that since I moved it to + the doc should change, but I didn't address that. I'll get on it this weekend.
As far as the column name and displayed values go, they're taken from the CREATE FUNCTION syntax, and were recommended
byMagnus, Bruce, and Fetter, who were all sitting next to me day after pgconf.eu Prague. I personally have no strong
feelingseither way, I just want to be able to see the info without having to directly query pg_proc. Whatever you all
agreeon is fine by me.
--
Jon T Erdman
Chief Information Officer voice: (312) 285-6735
Progressive Practice, Inc. jon@progressivepractice.com
P.O. Box 17288 www.progressivepractice.com
Rochester, NY 14617
On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> * Jon Erdman (postgresql@thewickedtribe.net) wrote:
>>> Oops! Here it is in the proper diff format. I didn't have my env set up correctly :(
>>
>> No biggie, and to get the bike-shedding started, I don't really like the
>> column name or the values.. :) I feel like something clearer would be
>> "Runs_As" with "caller" or "owner".. Saying "Security" makes me think
>> of ACLs more than what user ID the function runs as, to be honest.
>>
>> Looking at the actual patch itself, it looks like you have some
>> unecessary whitespace changes included..?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Stephen
>
> Stephen, I think Jon's column name and values make a lot of sense.
> That being said, I do agree with your point of making it clearer for
> the person viewing the output, I just don't know if it would be
> confusing when they wanted to change it or were trying to understand
> how it related.
>
> Agree on the extra spaces in the docs.
>
> Jon, I think you inserted your changes improperly in the docs. The
> classifications apply to the type, not to security.
>
> Also, you need to use the %s place holder and the gettext_noop() call
> for your values as well as your column name.
>
> Compiles and tests ok. Results look as expected.