From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: seccomp-bpf support |
Date: | 2020-01-07 12:59:00 |
Message-ID: | 20200107125900.5qiyj7ube4ys5le2@development |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 06:02:14AM -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
>On 1/6/20 8:37 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch is currently in "needs review" state, but the last message is
>> from August 29, and my understanding is that there have been a couple of
>> objections / disagreements about the architecture, difficulties with
>> producing the set of syscalls, and not providing any built-in policy.
>>
>> I don't think we're any closer to resolve those disagreements since
>> August, so I think we should make some decision about this patch,
>> instead of just moving it from one CF to the next one. The "needs
>> review" status seems not reflecting the situation.
>>
>> Are there any plans to post a new version of the patch with a different
>> design, or something like that? If not, I propose we mark it either as
>> rejected or returned with feedback (and maybe get a new patch in the
>> future).
>
>
>I assumed it was rejected.
>
I don't know. I still see it in the CF app with "needs review" status:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2263/
Barring objections, I'll mark it as rejected.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2020-01-07 13:08:46 | Re: reduce size of fmgr_builtins array |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-07 12:30:13 | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |