Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications
Date
Msg-id 25372.1248534397@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications  (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>)
Responses Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications  ("A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com>)
Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications  (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> writes:
> Yes, that seems reasonable.  The fact that you're still talking about
> "confined users" is slightly worrying and would seem to imply that
> there is still a superuser/normal user divide--it's probably just a
> terminology thing though.

There had better still be superusers.  Or do you want the correctness
of your backups to depend on whether your SELinux policy is correct?
The first time somebody loses critical data because SELinux suppressed
it from their pg_dump output, they're going to be on the warpath.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm)