Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The above point, and other similar ones in every discussion of the > proposed functionality, makes me think once again either that the > requirements for this feature aren't understood by everyone, or else > that they're not actually explicit enough. I have a feeling it's the > latter.
Yeah, I think that's exactly the problem here: we've got this large patch and no agreement on just what requirements it's supposed to meet. Perhaps others see it differently, but I feel like I'm being told that whatever the patch does is the right thing by definition ... and yet it doesn't seem to meet what I would think are the likely requirements of the users who might actually want such features. Agreeing on the requirements seems like a necessary condition for arriving at any consensus on a patch. Where can we get some evidence that would convince everyone that the requirements for a highly secure database are X, Y and Z? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers