Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2009-12-07 04:19:40
Message-ID: 4B1C825C.8090901@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I just looked over the latest version of this patch and it seems to
satisfy all the issues suggested by the initial review. This looks like
it's ready for a committer from a quality perspective and I'm going to
mark it as such.

I have a guess what some of the first points of discussion are going to
be though, so might as well raise them here. This patch is 2.8K lines
of code that's in a lot of places: a mix of full new functions, tweaks
to existing ones, docs, regression tests, it's a well structured but
somewhat heavy bit of work. One obvious questions is whether there's
enough demand for access controls on large objects to justify adding the
complexity involved to do so. A second thing I'm concerned about is
what implications this change would have for in-place upgrades. If
there's demand and it's not going to cause upgrade issues, then we just
need to find a committer willing to chew on it. I think those are the
main hurdles left for this patch.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Caleb Cushing 2009-12-07 04:26:12 Re: named generic constraints [feature request]
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2009-12-07 04:03:10 Re: Reading recovery.conf earlier