On 28/01/2008, Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 2:26 PM, Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sure, but do you know, Tom dislikes new columns in pg_proc :). > > Tom doesn't seem to like the idea of obfuscation of function code much > either :-) > > > This > > patch is usable sample of one possible solution and doesn't need > > initdb. And there is dependency on pgcrypto :(. But it is simply and > > it does all what is expected. Some customers wonted it. But I am not > > sure if similar patch can be accepted - this is prototype. And when > > I'll have some signals so patch can be commited I'll send final > > version with obfuscate col in pg_proc. Any patch of pg_proc needs two > > hours of work, and any change needs actualization - so lot of maybe > > useless work. > > Yeah, I realise tweaking pg_proc is a large job, and wouldn't expect > you to necessarily do it immediately - I just wanted to throw my > requirements from a tools perspective into the inevitable discussion.
with "obfuscate" col in pg_proc source can be little bit more readable and robust - current patch is +/- fast hack - so your requirement is accurate. Regards Pavel . > > Cheers, Dave. > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly