From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |
Date: | 2010-12-14 04:31:48 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimM0pcaWgtyMi-Gt5+oD8nuH-BZgCK1Biw6oRYE@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> (2010/12/14 12:53), Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>> (2010/12/14 12:10), Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>>>> The starter version is not intended to use in production system,
>>>>
>>>> Well, what's the point, then? I thought we had enough infrastructure
>>>> in place at this point to build a simple system that, while it
>>>> wouldn't meet every use case, would be useful to some people for
>>>> limited purposes. If that's not the case, I'm disappointed.
>>>>
>>> The point is performance is not first priority right now.
>>> I guess its performance does not become a major issue, because lack
>>> of some features (such as DDL, row-level) are more glaring than its
>>> performance.
>>> It is an independent topic whether it is useful for limited purpose,
>>> or not. For example, when existing permission checks disallow all
>>> the DDL commands from web-applications anyway, it will achieve an
>>> expected role.
>>
>> But you could also install a control into ProcessUtility_hook, right?
>
> Yes, it may be an option to get control DDL statement, although it is
> not fine-grained. Of course, we have a trade-off to the scale of patch.
I think it's just as important to have a coherent feature set as to
make the patch small. Post something, and then we'll discuss.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-12-14 04:40:25 | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-12-14 04:13:09 | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |