Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Joshua Brindle <met...@manicmethod.com> writes: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Right, which is why it's bad for something like a foreign key constraint > > >> to expose the fact that the row does exist after all. > > > > > Once again, this is not an issue for us. > > > > Yes it is an issue > > > The question of whether there is a covert channel is only a small part > > of my complaint here. If it's the judgement of security experts that > > that's an acceptable thing, that's fine, it's their turf. But SQL > > behavior is my turf, and I'm not happy with discarding fundamental > > semantic properties. > > Why did we bother to invite Joshua here if we aren't going to listen to > him? > > Thanks for coming to help Joshua, much appreciated.
I agree. This is exactly the type of feedback I was hoping for. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
