| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Brightwell, Adam" <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Dean Rasheed" <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Yeb Havinga" <yeb(dot)havinga(at)portavita(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: RLS feature has been committed |
| Date: | 2014-09-23 06:45:27 |
| Message-ID: | 54211707.5040505@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/23/2014 09:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
>>
>> IMHO, that would be entirely appropriate.
>
> That seems pretty straightforward, then. I think that it will have to
> be reverted.
OTOH, if the patch is actually OK as it was committed, there's no point
reverting it only to commit it again later. At the end of the day, the
important thing is that the patch gets sufficient review. Clearly
Stephen thinks that it did, while you and Andres do not.
To make sure this doesn't just slip by without sufficient review, I'll
add this to the next commitfest. It's a bit unusual to have a commitfest
entry for something that's already been committed, but that's fine.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrea Riciputi | 2014-09-23 06:49:16 | Extending COPY TO |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-09-23 06:33:37 | Re: Commitfest status |