Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 14:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 20:28 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>>>> This is totally separate from the really important question of whether
>>>> SE-Linux has a future, and another about whether, if SE-Linux has a
>>>> future, PostgreSQL needs to go there.
>>> Why would we think that it doesn't?
>> Have you noticed anyone except Red Hat taking it seriously?
> I just did a little research and it appears the other two big names in
> this world (Novel and Ubuntu) are using something called App Armor.
As far as I can see, SUSE, Ubuntu and Debian provide SELinux option.
But they are more conservative than RedHat/Fedora, because it is not
enabled in the default installation.
I don't think it is unpreferable decision. Users can choose the option
by themself according to requirements in the system.
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-12-02 02:16:48|
|Subject: Re: Page-level version upgrade (was: Block-level CRC checks)|
|Previous:||From: KaiGai Kohei||Date: 2009-12-02 01:53:14|
|Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review|