| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(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>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 16:31:55 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070901270831t51d0b7e4kff5dae154aefb489@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yeah, people like certification, but they also like products that work.
> Did you stop reading before getting to my non-security-based complaints?
I read them, but I suspect they are issues that can be addressed. How
would any of this affect join removal, anyway? At most it would
affect join removal WHEN USING SE-PostgreSQL, but I don't even see why
it would affect that. We've already decided we're not overly
concerned with covert channels, and the user being able to discern
that a join got removed is surely no more than that.
Furthermore, as covert channels go, it seems unlikely to be the one
that breaks the bank.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-27 16:34:41 | Re: Patch to add Windows 7 support |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-01-27 16:30:29 | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |