| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SE-PgSQL developer documentation (Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363)) |
| Date: | 2009-10-28 08:03:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4AE7FADC.2070808@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2009/10/27 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>> - no statement support to specify security context.
>>> (It makes impossible to add support in pg_dump. Is it really OK?)
>> I doubt that anything without pg_dump support would be even vaguely OK...
>
> In my previous experience, it enabled to reduce 300-400 lines of the patch.
> But here is no more sense than the 300-400 lines.
>
> In my honest, I like to include a feature to specify an explicit security
> context in the patch from the begining.
> (It also allows to attach test cases with more variations.)
Can you explain why that's required for pg_dump support? I was thinking
that there would be no explicit security labels on objects, and
permissions would be checked based on other inherent properties of the
object, like owner, name, schema etc.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-10-28 08:33:52 | Re: SE-PgSQL developer documentation (Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363)) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-10-28 06:33:07 | Re: Where's the docs? |