2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: > (2010/12/14 12:10), Robert Haas wrote: >> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: >>> The starter version is not intended to use in production system, >> >> Well, what's the point, then? I thought we had enough infrastructure >> in place at this point to build a simple system that, while it >> wouldn't meet every use case, would be useful to some people for >> limited purposes. If that's not the case, I'm disappointed. >> > The point is performance is not first priority right now. > I guess its performance does not become a major issue, because lack > of some features (such as DDL, row-level) are more glaring than its > performance. > It is an independent topic whether it is useful for limited purpose, > or not. For example, when existing permission checks disallow all > the DDL commands from web-applications anyway, it will achieve an > expected role.
But you could also install a control into ProcessUtility_hook, right? Saying, for example, you must have we_trust_you_a_lot_t to do any DDL? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
