| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |
| Date: | 2010-03-24 00:30:09 |
| Message-ID: | 11008.1269390609@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> My first thought about a catalog representation would be to add a column
>> to pg_auth which is a DB OID for local users or zero for global users.
>> However, you'd probably want to prevent local users and global users
>> from having the same names, and it's not very clear how to do that
>> with this representation (though that'd be even worse with separate
>> catalogs). I guess we could fall back on a creation-time check (ick).
> Could we use a suitably defined exclusion constraint?
Not unless you'd like to solve the issues with triggers on system
catalogs first ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-03-24 00:47:35 | Re: booleans in recovery.conf |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-24 00:27:31 | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |