vev@michvhf.com (Vince Vielhaber) wrote
> Here we go again. I thought you just said that the @ wouldn't be
> something a user would have to do. I understood that to be any user.
> It's back to ugly again.
>
> Vince.
If it means anything to you, I agree that it should be a configure/compile
time option and not a GUC variable -- no, actually this whole thing should
just be distributed as diff in contrib and if someone wants it they could
patch it by hand, thats just as asinine as the current implemenation.
What about actually incorporating this into the privileges system?
