| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-01-29 03:36:06 | Re: mingw check hung |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2009-01-29 03:32:42 | Re: 8.4 release planning |