| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
| Date: | 2008-12-10 12:42:08 |
| Message-ID: | 493FB920.6020308@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> I don't agree. What is the reason why? It has been unclear for me.
>
> The PGACE security framework is designed to allow users to choose
> an enhanced security mechanism from some of provided options.
> (Currently, we have sepgsql and rowacl.)
> It is quite natural that one is disabled when the other is enabled.
As a general rule, mutually exclusive features as compile-time option
should be avoided at all costs. Since most people use binary packages,
forcing the packager to make such a choice will always make a lot of
people unhappy, or alternatively cause one of the features to bitrot.
As a secondary rule, mutually exclusive features should be avoided at
all, without a compelling reason. I don't see such a reason here.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-10 12:44:56 | Re: ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-10 12:39:29 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |