Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)
Date
Msg-id 200812120359.mBC3xFr26989@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)  (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
Responses Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)  (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)  (Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
We have had discussion on whether we want one or two security columns; 
there have been comments on both sides.

Have we decided if we are going to use some type of integer on every row
that points to a pg_security row or put the value right in the row?

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 am unsure how an insert into a 'security_context' column would
automatically insert into pg_security however.  I am also unclear how
COPY would work.

Also, having the per-row value always be present in the row and
controlled by the bitmask seems ideal;  it avoids having to add a CREATE
TABLE option.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)
Next
From: "Fujii Masao"
Date:
Subject: Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code