Re: 8.4 release planning

Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>>> The problem, in words of one syllable, is that we are not sure we want
>>> it. Do you see a user community clamoring for SEPostgres, or a hacker
>>> community that is willing or able to maintain it?
>
>> No, it doesn't have as large a user base as the Windows port or
>> integrated text search. On the other hand, there *are* users out there,
>> and hackers, who are willing and interested in it for PostgreSQL because
>> it would give them an alternative to the de-facto standards.
>
> Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the
> whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to
> expend any real effort. But this patch is far too large and invasive
> to accept on the basis that only one guy understands it and will/might
> continue to maintain it.

The matter we're currently faced can be called as like a disconnection
between OSS communities.
At least, as several folks introduced in this thread, security focused
people are strongly waiting for SE-PostgreSQL feature upstreamed.
However, we have a wall to be overed, if they join to review the patches,
because most of security experts are not database experts (familiar to
its internal architectures).

In addition, I have hesitated to involve security experts due to the
discussion will need deep knowledge about its internal architectures.
But I think Bruce's suggestion is whorthwhile. At least, it is a case
we need cross-community discussion.

> I'll risk being rude to make my point: those who want SEPostgres in core
> need to put up or shut up. Now, not at some future time. We need
> people to sign off that this patch implements the features they want
> (not "sounds roughly like some vague future need I might have") and does
> so correctly. An incorrect security feature is considerably worse than
> useless. And once it's in core we aren't going to have a whole lot of
> elbow room to change the definition later.

At least, the security design of SE-PostgreSQL has been accepted for
two years in SELinux community. An evidence is its upstreamed security
policy (reference policy) contains rules for SE-PostgreSQL.

http://oss.tresys.com/repos/refpolicy/trunk/policy/modules/services/postgresql.te

Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>