Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)
Date: 2008-11-07 21:51:48
Message-ID: 20081107215148.GA11469@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:50:18PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> How will unique indexes work? Do you implicitly add security context as
> last column on every unique index, or does the uniqueness violation only
> occurs within security contexts, or does the uniqueness violation tested
> against all contextx that the inserter can currently see? Is there a
> change to system catalogs?

The wiki clearly states that the unique test is prior to any filtering.
Anything else seems crazy to me.

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL#Unique_constraint

> Foreign Key deletions could be handled correctly if you treat them as
> updates. If we have the following example

Why? If a client does a delete and the database says OK, the tuple
should be gone, *for everyone*.

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL#Foreign_Key_constraint

It is the responsibility of the DB administrator to worry about covert
channels.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-07 21:52:03 Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-11-07 21:45:27 Re: TABLE command