Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 16:36:50 Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> > > As one of the earlier reviewers, I think the design is OK, but the way
> > > the implementation is presented was not acceptable, and very little has
> > > been accomplished in terms of reacting to our comments. For example,
> > > where is the SQL row security feature, which should have been designed,
> > > implemented, and committed separately, in the opinion of most
> > > commentaries.
> > Eh? Are you thinking of column-level privileges, which was committed
> > last week?
The point is we would have preferred to see SQL-level row permissions as
a separate patch first; that just didn't happen in this case, and it
makes the discussion a little more complex.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-01-28 22:59:35|
|Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning|
|Previous:||From: Joshua Brindle||Date: 2009-01-28 22:47:00|
|Subject: Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable|