| From: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>, "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: viewing source code |
| Date: | 2007-12-20 18:47:53 |
| Message-ID: | 90bce5730712201047m4dd0fe05k6b1fccc57897326f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 12/20/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Roberts, Jon wrote:
> > This really is a needed feature to make PostgreSQL more attractive to
> > businesses. A more robust security model that better follows commercial
> > products is needed for adoption.
> I would argue that commercial products need to get a clue and stop
> playing bondage with their users to help stop their imminent and frankly
> obvious downfall from the Open Source competition.
I'm still not seeing where your comments are actually coming from, and
I can't decipher your argument as a result. Exactly what is it about
fine-grained security controls that is "playing bondage with their
users"?
> This "feature" as it is called can be developed externally and has zero
> reason to exist within PostgreSQL. If the feature has the level of
> demand that people think that it does, then the external project will be
> very successful and that's cool.
I'm unsure of what you consider "external" here. Is SE-PostgreSQL the
type of thing you mean?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-12-20 19:40:11 | Re: viewing source code |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-20 18:29:52 | Re: viewing source code |