Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

[Tom Lane]

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think we had some discussions about changing the way that shared
>> memory keys are generated, which might make this a less critical issue.
>> But until something's done about that, this patch looks awfully
>> dangerous.

> But do we yank it out for that reason?  I don't think so.

Do you want to put a bright red "THIS FEATURE MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR
DATA" warning in the manual?  I think it'd be rather irresponsible of
us to ship the patch without such a warning, unless someone builds a
replacement interlock capability (or gets rid of the need for the
interlock).

                        regards, tom lane