On Tuesday 27 January 2009 16:36:50 Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:
> > As one of the earlier reviewers, I think the design is OK, but the way
> > the implementation is presented was not acceptable, and very little has
> > been accomplished in terms of reacting to our comments. For example,
> > where is the SQL row security feature, which should have been designed,
> > implemented, and committed separately, in the opinion of most
> > commentaries.
>
> Eh? Are you thinking of column-level privileges, which was committed
> last week?
No.
> The SQL spec doesn't define row-level security, and coming
> up with something willy-nilly on our own doesn't really strike me as the
> best approach.
Exactly. But there is plenty of discussion on that elsewhere.