* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I could not get consensus of design on selinux policy side.
> > Even though my opinion is to add individual security class for materialized
> > view to implement refresh permission, other people has different opinion.
> > So, I don't want it shall be a blocker of v9.3 to avoid waste of time.
> > Also, I'll remind selinux community on this issue again, and tries to handle
> > in another way from what I proposed before.
>
> Did we get this fixed?
I don't think so, but it's something I'm interested in and have an
envrionment where I can work on it.
Will look into it and try to provide an update soon.
Any further thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Stephen
