Joshua Brindle wrote:
>> FWIW, as you know, sepostgresql is already included in Fedora. You can
>> continue shipping it as a seperate RPM set.
>
> That is non-ideal. Getting the capability in to the standard database
> shipped with RHEL is very important to me and my customers.
Could you speak - even in general terms - about who your customers are
and what kinds of needs (is row-level acls the most important to them?
mandantory access control at the table level? both?) they have?
I'm guessing a better understanding of how real-world users would
use this feature would be enlightening.
> Since you can turn this off with GUC I don't see why it makes sense to
> ship 2 databases (nevermind the maintenance issues)