Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I have seen some negative reactions to the feature. I am willing to ask
> > for a vote, if that is what people want. If not, I will apply the patch
> > in the next day or two.
>
> So are you calling for a vote or just willing to ask for one? I vote for
> putting it in contrib and letting whoever wants it apply it and use it.
> The more we discuss it the worse it looks.
I can do a vote. However, seeing many positive comments about the
patch, and 1-2 negative ones (with no suggestion on how to improve it),
I don't think the negative votes will win.
I usually do a vote when the email comments are coming in kind of close.
Specifically, in the thread, I have Vince and Peter as negative, and >7
positive, I think.
Look at the contraints I am under to implement what is effectively
username schemas:
small patch, no bloat, because it isn't a core feature
multiple global users
no namespace collisions between global/non-global users
zero performance impact
32-byte user string coming from the client
Specifically, what is ugly about it? Is it that global users have an @
at the end of their names? How do we prevent namespace collisions
_without_ doing this? I am all ears.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
