On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:14:48 -0500 Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:43:27AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > often. It is poor implementation and proof that the theoretical > > security implications that are being brought up in this thread are far > > from the practical reality. > > "We have this hole over here for historical reasons, so let's maybe open a > new one over there"?
Besides, proof that it would do no extra harm is hardly a strong argumet for including it. Given how easy it is to add it to any DB that needs it, I fail to see why we should add it by default. Personally I would like to see more things removed from PG and have them added as modules when required. Of course, we would need a proper module system first. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
