| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TODO Item: ACL_CONNECT |
| Date: | 2006-04-25 12:51:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20060425125108.GD24421@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 23:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Why are we debating this? It won't get accepted anyway, because the
> > whole thing is silly. Show me one other object type that we issue
> > such warnings for, or anyone else who has even suggested that we should.
No other object type has the ability to require you to stop the server
and start a standalone backend to fix the mistake, which is what makes
this thing unique.
> So, I am very much confused. What do I do now. Do you mean the whole
> thing won't get accepted and I should stop developing the TODO item? or
> just strip the warning part.
Tom is referring to the WARNING.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-04-25 12:53:15 | Re: TODO Item: ACL_CONNECT |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-04-25 12:40:02 | Re: Protocol Message Graph |