Re: row_security GUC, BYPASSRLS

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: row_security GUC, BYPASSRLS
Date: 2015-09-21 02:21:16
Message-ID: 14863.1442802076@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> * Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
>>> That would be awesome, but I would say that if we do #1 & 2 for 9.5, we
>>> also need #3.

>> Agreed on all of the above.

> Well, then, we should get cracking. beta1 is coming soon, and it
> would be best if this were done before then.

I'd say it's *necessary*. We're not adding new features after beta1.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Corey Huinker 2015-09-21 04:52:09 Re: [POC] FETCH limited by bytes.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-09-21 02:19:04 Re: row_security GUC, BYPASSRLS