| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, kolo hhmow <grzsmp(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pam auth - add rhost item |
| Date: | 2015-10-16 13:56:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20151016135628.GB3391@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think some more interesting questions are:
> - Did he implement this correctly?
> - Would it break anything?
> - Are there lots of other knobs we should expose too instead of just one?
> - What would it take to turn this into a committable patch?
> - Would the cost of exposing this and perhaps some other knobs cost
> too much in performance for the number of people it would make happy?
> - If so, should the behavior be GUC-controlled or is there
> justification for arguing we should drop the whole patch?
I agree with this set of questions -- the idea behind the patch seemed
quite reasonable to me.
> I feel like we've got somebody new showing up to our community with an
> idea that is not obviously stupid. If we want such people to stick
> around, we should try to give their ideas a fair shake.
+1 to this, too.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-10-16 13:57:20 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Glenn Zhu | 2015-10-16 13:54:52 | Re: Error creating gin index on jsonb columns |