Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1

2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> (2010/12/14 12:53), Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>> (2010/12/14 12:10), Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>>>> The starter version is not intended to use in production system,
>>>>
>>>> Well, what's the point, then?  I thought we had enough infrastructure
>>>> in place at this point to build a simple system that, while it
>>>> wouldn't meet every use case, would be useful to some people for
>>>> limited purposes.  If that's not the case, I'm disappointed.
>>>>
>>> The point is performance is not first priority right now.
>>> I guess its performance does not become a major issue, because lack
>>> of some features (such as DDL, row-level) are more glaring than its
>>> performance.
>>> It is an independent topic whether it is useful for limited purpose,
>>> or not. For example, when existing permission checks disallow all
>>> the DDL commands from web-applications anyway, it will achieve an
>>> expected role.
>>
>> But you could also install a control into ProcessUtility_hook, right?
>
> Yes, it may be an option to get control DDL statement, although it is
> not fine-grained. Of course, we have a trade-off to the scale of patch.

I think it's just as important to have a coherent feature set as to
make the patch small. Post something, and then we'll discuss.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company