| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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: | 2009-01-28 19:38:36 |
| Message-ID: | 21136.1233171516@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think partitioning is really the same thing as row-level
> security.
Of course not, but it seems to me that it can be used to accomplish most
of the same practical use-cases. The main gripe about doing it via
partitioning is that the user's nose gets rubbed in the fact that there
can't be an enormous number of different security classifications in the
same table (since he has to explicitly make a partition for each one).
But the proposed implementation of row-level security would poop out
pretty darn quick for such a case, too, and frankly I'm not seeing an
application that would demand it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-28 19:41:19 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-28 19:33:47 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |