From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Row Level Security Documentation |
Date: | 2017-09-26 19:29:13 |
Message-ID: | 20170926192913.GO4628@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > That's a relatively minor point, however, and I do feel that this patch
> > is a definite improvement. Were you thinking of just applying this for
> > v10, or back-patching all or part of it..?
>
> I was planning on back-patching it to 9.5, taking out the parts
> relating the restrictive policies as appropriate. Currently the 9.5
> and 9.6 docs are identical, as are 10 and HEAD, and 9.5/9.6 only
> differs from 10/HEAD in a couple of places where they mention
> restrictive policies. IMO we should stick to that, making any
> improvements available in the back-branches. I was also thinking the
> same about the new summary table, although I haven't properly reviewed
> that yet.
Makes sense to me.
+1
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-09-26 19:29:23 | Re: v10 pg_ctl compatibility |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2017-09-26 19:14:59 | Re: Row Level Security Documentation |