| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel |
| Date: | 2014-10-11 21:41:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20141011214147.GF18020@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-10-11 18:19:05 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> So maybe we should get rid of the toast table for pg_seclabel. One
> less
> > >> catalog table for a feature that hardly anyone is using seems like a
> fine
> > >> idea to me ...
> >
> > > Is this still an open item?
> >
> > I haven't done anything about it ...
> >
>
> If the final decision is get rid the toast table for pg_seclabel and as
> I've time then I did it.
I still think this the wrong direction. I really fail to see why we want
to restrict security policies to some rather small size.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-11 21:43:46 | Re: split builtins.h to quote.h |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-11 21:31:52 | Re: multixact optimization patches |