From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |
Date: | 2010-12-14 03:53:18 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=4rgFW8mwYzZUOdWZbceBb91BUEnqS1g4E6dXt@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> (2010/12/14 12:10), Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>> The starter version is not intended to use in production system,
>>
>> Well, what's the point, then? I thought we had enough infrastructure
>> in place at this point to build a simple system that, while it
>> wouldn't meet every use case, would be useful to some people for
>> limited purposes. If that's not the case, I'm disappointed.
>>
> The point is performance is not first priority right now.
> I guess its performance does not become a major issue, because lack
> of some features (such as DDL, row-level) are more glaring than its
> performance.
> It is an independent topic whether it is useful for limited purpose,
> or not. For example, when existing permission checks disallow all
> the DDL commands from web-applications anyway, it will achieve an
> expected role.
But you could also install a control into ProcessUtility_hook, right?
Saying, for example, you must have we_trust_you_a_lot_t to do any DDL?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-12-14 03:55:13 | Re: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 03:50:29 | Re: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10 |