Tom Lane wrote:
> A possible objection to this plan is that if the column-level privileges
> patch doesn't get in, then we're left with a useless column in
> pg_attribute. But an always-null column doesn't cost much of anything,
> and we know that sooner or later we will support per-column ACLs:
> they are clearly useful as well as required by spec. So any
> inefficiency would only be transient anyway.
Right. I don't see this objection holding much water as column privs are
something that many in the community would like to see. If Stephen's
patch doesn't get in, it is likely it would (or a derivative there of)
within the 8.5 release cycle. If anything it just provides a stepping
stone. I see nothing wrong with that.
> Thoughts, objections?
Joshua D. Drake
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2008-09-21 17:58:29|
|Subject: Re: [patch] fix dblink security hole|
|Previous:||From: Naz||Date: 2008-09-21 17:25:35|
|Subject: pg_dump feature|