From: | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
Date: | 2008-12-12 13:21:50 |
Message-ID: | 6DAFE8F5425AB84DB3FCA4537D829A561CEA715FCF@M0164.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If we use some type of integer, I suggest using this structure for
> pg_security:
>
> CREATE TABLE pg_security(
> relid oid,
> secid int2,
> secacl aclitem[],
> secext TEXT
> );
>
> This allows the per-row value to be a simple int2. It also improves
> maintenance because rows are associated only with a specific table;
> unused values can then be removed more easily. And it allows both
> secacl and secext security to be specified.
I do not expect that the number of unique combinations of "rights"
strongly varies between the tables. Thus I think creating pg_security rows per table
would vastly increase the size of pg_security.
The expected size of pg_security is small in the current implementation.
Example: security_context = "top_secret_t"
With above schema you need one row in pg_security for each table that has "top_secret_t" rows.
The current implementation only needs one row for this, which is imho better.
CREATE TABLE pg_security(
secid serial,
secacl aclitem[],
secext TEXT
);
May be ok, but I am with KaiGai, that it is not obvious how to update the
security context syntactically when using 2 subsystems simultaneously.
But using, restricting and selecting is easy.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-12 13:24:36 | Re: psql commands for SQL/MED |
Previous Message | Ian Caulfield | 2008-12-12 13:14:24 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |