| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
| Date: | 2008-12-11 18:32:25 |
| Message-ID: | 9834.1229020345@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:32:50 Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How can we stick all of these in the same column at the same time?
>>
>> Why would we want to?
> Because we want to use SQL-based row access control and SELinux-based row
> access control at the same time. Isn't this exactly one of the objections
> upthread? Both must be available at the same time.
Well, the objection I was raising is that they should control the same
thing. Otherwise we are simply inventing an invasive, high-cost,
nonstandard(*) feature that we have had zero field demand for.
regards, tom lane
(*) Worse than nonstandard: it actively breaks semantics demanded by
the standard. If I had my druthers we would flat out reject row-level
security filtering of any kind. I don't want us to expend a lot of
effort implementing multiple kinds.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2008-12-11 18:53:35 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-11 18:09:28 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |