| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
| Date: | 2008-12-11 21:03:19 |
| Message-ID: | 200812112303.20692.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 11 December 2008 20:32:25 Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, the objection I was raising is that they should control the same
> thing. Otherwise we are simply inventing an invasive, high-cost,
> nonstandard(*) feature that we have had zero field demand for.
There is certainly a rather big field demand for row-level security. I'm not
sure about SELinux integration, though, or which one of the two you were
referring to.
The trick, of course, is to make it work well. That would usually require the
polyinstantiation approach, and I am disappointed that that was apparently
not chosen here.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-11 21:05:55 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-11 20:57:22 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |