Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> The problem, in words of one syllable, is that we are not sure we want
>> it. Do you see a user community clamoring for SEPostgres, or a hacker
>> community that is willing or able to maintain it?
> No, it doesn't have as large a user base as the Windows port or
> integrated text search. On the other hand, there *are* users out there,
> and hackers, who are willing and interested in it for PostgreSQL because
> it would give them an alternative to the de-facto standards.
Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the
whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to
expend any real effort. But this patch is far too large and invasive
to accept on the basis that only one guy understands it and will/might
continue to maintain it.
I'll risk being rude to make my point: those who want SEPostgres in core
need to put up or shut up. Now, not at some future time. We need
people to sign off that this patch implements the features they want
(not "sounds roughly like some vague future need I might have") and does
so correctly. An incorrect security feature is considerably worse than
useless. And once it's in core we aren't going to have a whole lot of
elbow room to change the definition later.
regards, tom lane