| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |
| Date: | 2009-01-29 02:27:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20090129022734.GC8123@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> pg_security (which I really think out to be renamed to
> pg_selinux_context or something, and make a new table if we someday
> support Trusted Solaris or whatever).
Err, this doesn't really make sense if we're doing row-level security,
that's not something which is tied to SELinux or Trusted Solaris. Of
course, it's likely we'll need such a pg_selinux_context table or
something too.. Or maybe pg_security can be pg_rls instead. Just
wanted to avoid confusion over this point.. Assuming Peter's approach
is the path that is generally agreed upon by core..
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Brindle | 2009-01-29 02:36:14 | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-01-29 02:22:45 | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |