> On Mar 11, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> I do think that’s reasonable … and believe I suggested it about 3 messages
> ago in this thread. ;) (step #3 I think it was? Or maybe 4).
Yes, and you mentioned it to me off-list.
I'm soliciting a more concrete specification for what you are proposing. To
me, that means understanding how the SQL spec behavior that you champion
translates into specific changes. You specified some of this in steps #1
through #5, but I'd like a clearer indication of how many of those (#1 alone,
both #1 and #2, or what?) constitute a competing idea to the idea of role
ownership, and greater detail about how each of those steps translate into
specific behavior changes in postgres. Your initial five-step email seems to
be claiming that #1 by itself is competitive, but to me it seems at least #1
and #2 would be required.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
