Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: > As one of the earlier reviewers, I think the design is OK, but the way the > implementation is presented was not acceptable, and very little has been > accomplished in terms of reacting to our comments. For example, where is the > SQL row security feature, which should have been designed, implemented, and > committed separately, in the opinion of most commentaries.
Eh? Are you thinking of column-level privileges, which was committed
last week? The SQL spec doesn't define row-level security, and coming
up with something willy-nilly on our own doesn't really strike me as the
best approach. Oracle, SQL Server, etc, also use the security labels
concept that the SE-PostgreSQL patch implements.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
