Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> The above point, and other similar ones in every discussion of the
> proposed functionality, makes me think once again either that the
> requirements for this feature aren't understood by everyone, or else
> that they're not actually explicit enough. I have a feeling it's the
Yeah, I think that's exactly the problem here: we've got this large
patch and no agreement on just what requirements it's supposed to meet.
Perhaps others see it differently, but I feel like I'm being told that
whatever the patch does is the right thing by definition ... and yet
it doesn't seem to meet what I would think are the likely requirements
of the users who might actually want such features.
Agreeing on the requirements seems like a necessary condition for
arriving at any consensus on a patch. Where can we get some evidence
that would convince everyone that the requirements for a highly
secure database are X, Y and Z?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: KaiGai Kohei||Date: 2008-09-26 14:07:06|
|Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches|
|Previous:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2008-09-26 13:45:06|
|Subject: Re: FSM, now without WAL-logging|