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
> 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