On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roberts, Jon wrote:
I still say this I a needed feature if you want adoption for enterprise level databases in larger companies.
It is to some people, and Joshua's opinion is, like everybody else's, just one person's view on what's important.
The security out of the box is not enough and it is too much to ask everyone implementing PostgreSQL to do it themselves.
This is a fair statement coming from the perspective of someone who expects source code protection. What's not a fair statement is to compare the security to Access just because you don't don't understand all the options or think they're too complicated. An inflammatory comment like that is just going to make the very developers who could be helping you here mad.
The larger distinction that you might not be aware of here is that PostgreSQL tries to keep things that can be implemented separately out of the database engine itself. As far as the core database group is concerned, if there is a good interface available to provide these features, it would be better to have an external project worry about things like how to make that interface more palatable to people. Look at pgadmin--that's the reason it's a separate project.
The right question to ask here may not be "why isn't PostgreSQL adding these features?", but instead "is there a project that makes this low-level capability that already exists easier to use?". Unfortunately for you, making that distinction right now means you're stuck with a little bit of study to see whether any of the existing mechanisms might meet the need you've already got, which is why people have been suggesting things you might look into.
-- * Greg Smith gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
