2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: > (2010/12/14 12:53), Robert Haas wrote: >> 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? > > Yes, it may be an option to get control DDL statement, although it is > not fine-grained. Of course, we have a trade-off to the scale of patch.
I think it's just as important to have a coherent feature set as to make the patch small. Post something, and then we'll discuss. -- 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
