> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 November 2005 15:15
> To: Magnus Hagander
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Réf. : RE: [HACKERS] Running PostGre on DVD
Andrew, I'm getting a bit angry (and I'm sorry for that) because I think
the performances of Postgres are better than Firebird and I'm frustrated to
have to compile it whereas it would be simpler for everybody to have an
option.
It seem to be impossible though, I will use Firebird.
Thanks for
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't understand why an user can't WILLINGLY (by EXPLICITLY setting an
> OPTION) allow a privileged administrator to run PostGre.
Well, to start with, it increases the support costs of the product as a
whole to the community. Adding an option with
On 11/15/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand why an user can't WILLINGLY (by EXPLICITLY setting an
> OPTION) allow a privileged administrator to run PostGre.
> It is a MAJOR problem for me, that will force me to use another database
> because my database will be on
NO, it won't reduce everybody's security.
You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say.
It would NOT be the default option. The user could just choose by
SPECIFYING it, that PostGre don't control the privileged he has.
This discussion is amazing. Without this option, I CANNOT use Po
I don't understand why an user can't WILLINGLY (by EXPLICITLY setting an
OPTION) allow a privileged administrator to run PostGre.
It is a MAJOR problem for me, that will force me to use another database
because my database will be on a DVD and I'm not sure that on the PC on
which it will be ex
