From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
Date: | 2009-07-26 17:15:23 |
Message-ID: | 4A6C8F2B.1040904@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> If you want to store intelligence data about the war in Iraq and
> intelligence data about the war in Afghanistan, it might not be too
> bad to store them in separate databases, though storing them in the
> same database might also make things simpler for users who have access
> to both sets of data. But if you have higher and lower
> classifications of data it's pretty handy (AIUI) to be able to let the
> higher-secrecy users read the lower-secrecy data
Nice example.
Is this system being designed flexibly enough so that one user may
have access to the higher-secrecy data of the Iraq dataset but only
the lower-secrecy Afghanistan dataset; while a different user may have
access to the higher-secrecy Afghanistan data but only the lower-secrecy
Iraq data?
I imagine it's not uncommon for organizations to want to have total
access to "their" data, but expose more limited access to other
organizations they communicate with.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-07-26 17:40:29 | Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-26 16:48:08 | Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff |