Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications
Date: 2009-07-25 15:06:37
Message-ID: 25372.1248534397@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> Yes, that seems reasonable. The fact that you're still talking about
> "confined users" is slightly worrying and would seem to imply that
> there is still a superuser/normal user divide--it's probably just a
> terminology thing though.

There had better still be superusers. Or do you want the correctness
of your backups to depend on whether your SELinux policy is correct?
The first time somebody loses critical data because SELinux suppressed
it from their pg_dump output, they're going to be on the warpath.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-07-25 15:41:01 Re: Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-07-25 14:56:50 Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff