(2010/12/14 13:31), Robert Haas wrote: > 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. > OK, I'll submit a patch without ProcessUtility_hook at first. Then, let's have a discussion what kind of control is available or reasonable on DDL commands.
Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
