Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
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 03:35:22
Message-ID: 603c8f070901281935h763ba592o1b67116fb71a01ab@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> 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..

I don't think there's anything about pg_security that is specific to
row-level security.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2009-01-29 03:36:06
Subject: Re: mingw check hung
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2009-01-29 03:32:42
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group