| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, 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: | 2009-01-29 10:58:13 |
| Message-ID: | 87tz7iqsze.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm wondering if this problem could be solved with a sort of
> mark-and-sweep garbage collection:
>...
> Then you can write something which goes through and sets all the rows
> to false and then visits every row of every table in the database and
> forces OID lookups on the security ID of each. When you get done, any
> rows that still say false are unreferenced and can be killed.
This sounds awfully similar to the bitmap index vacuum problem. I wonder if
security labels could be implemented as some kind of funky special index.
Just thinking out loud. I don't have a well-formed idea based on this.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-29 11:08:06 | Re: Commitfest infrastructure |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-01-29 10:30:02 | Re: mingw check hung |