| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Damian Wolgast <damian(dot)wolgast(at)si-co(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Column Redaction |
| Date: | 2014-10-15 23:59:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+1B_f4k56d44DEa-5n0j-yxQTKFgxK8PGS8x5VLQ7SdA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 October 2014 21:03, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So you're familiar then with this process? So you know that an auditor
>> would trigger an investigation, resulting in deeper surveillance and
>> gathering of evidence that ends with various remedial actions, such as
>> court. How would that process start then, if not this way?
>
> I've seen lots of such investigations fail because the evidence wasn't
> strong enough to link to a particular person, but rather a computer
> terminal or something like that.
So your solution to the evidence problem is to do nothing? Or you have
a better suggestion?
Nothing is certain, apart from doing nothing.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-16 00:13:01 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax. |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-15 22:24:02 | Re: replicating DROP commands across servers |