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

Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2009-12-07 04:19:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I just looked over the latest version of this patch and it seems to 
satisfy all the issues suggested by the initial review.  This looks like 
it's ready for a committer from a quality perspective and I'm going to 
mark it as such.

I have a guess what some of the first points of discussion are going to 
be though, so might as well raise them here.  This patch is 2.8K lines 
of code that's in a lot of places:  a mix of full new functions, tweaks 
to existing ones, docs, regression tests, it's a well structured but 
somewhat heavy bit of work.  One obvious questions is whether there's 
enough demand for access controls on large objects to justify adding the 
complexity involved to do so.  A second thing I'm concerned about is 
what implications this change would have for in-place upgrades.  If 
there's demand and it's not going to cause upgrade issues, then we just 
need to find a committer willing to chew on it.  I think those are the 
main hurdles left for this patch.

Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Caleb CushingDate: 2009-12-07 04:26:12
Subject: Re: named generic constraints [feature request]
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2009-12-07 04:03:10
Subject: Re: Reading recovery.conf earlier

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