> > Once we have a "real remote admin API", it becomes an > argument, and it > > will have to be adjusted. But we don't have that today, and > I see no > > need to create a new guc category just for this. After all, some of > > these functions will probably go away completely once we > have such an > > API. > > None of these functions are getting into 8.1 anyway; we > should be designing the long-term solution not making up > short-lived hacks.
I'm sorry, but then why the **** did my question: > And finally, with something like that in place, would you be fine with > the file editing functions as they stand (limiting them to the pg > directories, as I believe it does)? get the answer: > I'm OK with them even without the directory limitation as long as > there's a way to disable them. If you had just said from the start that these functions would not be accepted even if the specific concerns raised were fixed, a lot of time invested by a lot of people would not have been necessary. I guess I just join the rank of people giving up on this. Too bad for the people who want to be able to remotely admin their stuff, because I now think everybody who actually cared have given up. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org