| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 20:52:42 |
| Message-ID: | 23427.1233089562@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 16:36:50 Stephen Frost wrote:
>> The SQL spec doesn't define row-level security, and coming
>> up with something willy-nilly on our own doesn't really strike me as the
>> best approach.
> Exactly. But there is plenty of discussion on that elsewhere.
BTW, whilst we are being beat about the head and shoulders with how
Oracle et al already have features like this, it is entirely appropriate
to wonder how come it's not in the standard. Those companies surely
pretty much control the standards committee, and they have managed to
push a ton of rather dubious things into the last couple of SQL updates.
If row-level security is such a mess that they couldn't standardize it,
that tells me something.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-01-27 20:54:07 | Re: mingw check hung |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-01-27 20:52:06 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |