Joshua Brindle wrote: >> FWIW, as you know, sepostgresql is already included in Fedora. You can >> continue shipping it as a seperate RPM set. > > That is non-ideal. Getting the capability in to the standard database > shipped with RHEL is very important to me and my customers.
Could you speak - even in general terms - about who your customers are and what kinds of needs (is row-level acls the most important to them? mandantory access control at the table level? both?) they have? I'm guessing a better understanding of how real-world users would use this feature would be enlightening. > Since you can turn this off with GUC I don't see why it makes sense to > ship 2 databases (nevermind the maintenance issues) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
