Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1

(2010/12/14 13:31), Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>:
>> (2010/12/14 12:53), Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>:
>>>> (2010/12/14 12:10), Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> 2010/12/13 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai@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 <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>