On 1/6/20 8:37 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > This patch is currently in "needs review" state, but the last message is > from August 29, and my understanding is that there have been a couple of > objections / disagreements about the architecture, difficulties with > producing the set of syscalls, and not providing any built-in policy. > > I don't think we're any closer to resolve those disagreements since > August, so I think we should make some decision about this patch, > instead of just moving it from one CF to the next one. The "needs > review" status seems not reflecting the situation. > > Are there any plans to post a new version of the patch with a different > design, or something like that? If not, I propose we mark it either as > rejected or returned with feedback (and maybe get a new patch in the > future).
I assumed it was rejected. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
