Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications

Robert Haas wrote:
> 2009/8/3 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>> I now plans to submit two patches for the next commit fest.
>> The one is implementation of the abstraction layer.
>> The other is basic implementation of the SE-PostgreSQL.
>
> Is this a good idea, or would it be better to focus on the aclcheck
> stuff (which is what I understand you to mean here by abstraction
> layer) first? You will be much happier getting one patch committed
> than two patches not committed... getting two patches of this size in
> one CommitFest seems very unlikely, and I worry that the SE-PostgreSQL
> patch will distract your time and reviewing time from the aclcheck
> refactoring that must get done first, and well.

Needless to say, the security abstraction layer shall have higher
priority than SE-PostgreSQL which depends on the layer.

If we can focus on the SE-PostgreSQL feature in the third commit fest,
it will be better than all the facilities from the scratch.
(BTW, I also have a WIP patch to support largeobject permissions.)

So, we may be able to modify the development plan as follows:
* 2nd CommitFest (15-Sep)
- security abstraction layer
(- largeobject permission)

* 3rd CommitFest (15-Nov)
- basic functionality of SE-PostgreSQL

* 4th CommitFest (15-Jan)
- full functionality of SE-PostgreSQL
(row-level controls, filesystem permissions, ...)

Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>