| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues |
| Date: | 2007-06-14 17:26:38 |
| Message-ID: | 16101.1181841998@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> O.k. I am not trying to throw any cold water on this, but with the
> limitations we are suggesting, does the patch gain us anything over just
> leaving tsearch in contrib?
Well, if you want to take a hard-nosed approach, no form of the patch
would gain us anything over leaving it in contrib, at least not from a
functionality standpoint. The argument in favor has always been about
perception, really: if it's a "core" feature not an "add-on", then
people will take it more seriously. And there's a rather weak
ease-of-use argument that you don't have to install a contrib module.
(The idea that it's targeted at people who can't or won't install a
contrib module is another reason why I think we can skip user-defined
parsers and dictionaries ...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-06-14 17:29:53 | Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-06-14 17:09:20 | Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-06-14 17:29:53 | Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-06-14 17:09:20 | Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues |