| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: protecting prosrc (was Re: [GENERAL] USAGE on schema |
| Date: | 2002-12-02 21:30:13 |
| Message-ID: | 3DEBD0E5.1070109@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>I think this would be a good idea, though there becomes a question of
>>what type of performance hit comes into play when doing this. I suppose
>>if you have an option whether to encrypt it or not that would help. One
>>other thing is that it needs to be "decryptable" by owners and
>>superusers.
>
> Surely a more generic column privileges implementation would be better?
I think column privileges is orthogonal to this issue. The ability to
"protect" stored procedure or package source is common among at least the
commercial databases I've worked with (as is column level grants).
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eric B.Ridge | 2002-12-02 21:39:04 | Re: 7.3 on OS X HOWTO |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-12-02 21:27:36 | Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMSTAMP |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-12-02 21:40:49 | Re: 7.4 Wishlist |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-12-02 21:24:31 | Re: protecting prosrc (was Re: [GENERAL] USAGE on schema |