From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep) |
Date: | 2008-09-24 04:23:59 |
Message-ID: | 18877.1222230239@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> That's the wrong question. The question here is: does it make sense to
>> have per-row permissions implemented on top of an abstraction layer
>> whose sole current implementation is SE-Linux?
> Er, Bruce was asking about per-column, not per-row.
> There's a patch listed on CommitFest:2008-09 to introduce per-column
> permissions, but it's apparently still WIP. How much does that
> overlap/conflict with these patches?
Yeah, Stephen Frost is working on that and still has a ways to go.
I think he might get it done in time for 8.4 (ie, in time for the
November commitfest) but it's far from certain.
Per-column permissions are part of the SQL standard, and so I think
we have to implement that without depending on any OS-specific
infrastructure. So on that end I agree with Bruce's position that
we should do the SQL version first and then think about extensions
for SELinux.
Per-row is not in the spec and so we can design that as we please.
But as I mentioned a moment ago, I don't see how it can possibly
play nice with foreign keys ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2008-09-24 04:30:22 | Re: Hot Standby Design |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-09-24 04:14:54 | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep) |