Re: Proposed changes to security.html
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposed changes to security.html |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1362197787.11571.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposed changes to security.html (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposed changes to security.html
|
Список | pgsql-www |
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 16:22 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > What would be the point of that, other than introducing the use of less > > accurate language? > > Oh, right, we have some contrib modules which are not extensions. > However, the term "contrib" is confusing and not very helpful. Maybe I > should use the term "Additional Supplied Modules" (shorthand "modules"), > which is what we use in the docs? That might be worthwhile consideration for introductory or marketing material, say, but for the purpose of tracking security issues, "contrib" is perfectly clear: If you are installing from source, it is code that lives under contrib/. If you are installing from binary, it is code that is in the postgresql-contrib package (usually). Calling it anything other than "contrib" cannot possibly make that more clear.
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: