On 12/20/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Roberts, Jon wrote:
> > This really is a needed feature to make PostgreSQL more attractive to
> > businesses. A more robust security model that better follows commercial
> > products is needed for adoption.
> I would argue that commercial products need to get a clue and stop
> playing bondage with their users to help stop their imminent and frankly
> obvious downfall from the Open Source competition.
I'm still not seeing where your comments are actually coming from, and
I can't decipher your argument as a result. Exactly what is it about
fine-grained security controls that is "playing bondage with their
users"?
> This "feature" as it is called can be developed externally and has zero
> reason to exist within PostgreSQL. If the feature has the level of
> demand that people think that it does, then the external project will be
> very successful and that's cool.
I'm unsure of what you consider "external" here. Is SE-PostgreSQL the
type of thing you mean?