Re: sepgsql logging

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sepgsql logging
Date: 2022-01-12 19:24:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So it looks like their plan is to unconditionally write "permissive=0"
>> or "permissive=1", while Dave's patch just prints nothing in enforcing
>> mode. While I can see some virtue in brevity, I think that doing
>> exactly what SELinux does is probably a better choice. For one thing,
>> it'd remove doubt about whether one is looking at a log from a sepgsql
>> version that logs this or one that doesn't.

> Here's an update that adds the "permissive=0" case.

You forgot to update the expected-results files :-(.
Done and pushed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bossart, Nathan 2022-01-12 19:28:23 Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2022-01-12 18:57:12 Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication