|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Row Level Security Documentation|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > That's a relatively minor point, however, and I do feel that this patch
> > is a definite improvement. Were you thinking of just applying this for
> > v10, or back-patching all or part of it..?
> I was planning on back-patching it to 9.5, taking out the parts
> relating the restrictive policies as appropriate. Currently the 9.5
> and 9.6 docs are identical, as are 10 and HEAD, and 9.5/9.6 only
> differs from 10/HEAD in a couple of places where they mention
> restrictive policies. IMO we should stick to that, making any
> improvements available in the back-branches. I was also thinking the
> same about the new summary table, although I haven't properly reviewed
> that yet.
Makes sense to me.
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2017-09-26 19:29:23||Re: v10 pg_ctl compatibility|
|Previous Message||Dean Rasheed||2017-09-26 19:14:59||Re: Row Level Security Documentation|