Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches
Date: 2008-09-26 14:04:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
> latter.

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 KoheiDate: 2008-09-26 14:07:06
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches
Previous:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-09-26 13:45:06
Subject: Re: FSM, now without WAL-logging

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group