On 1/6/20 8:37 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch is currently in "needs review" state, but the last message is
> from August 29, and my understanding is that there have been a couple of
> objections / disagreements about the architecture, difficulties with
> producing the set of syscalls, and not providing any built-in policy.
>
> I don't think we're any closer to resolve those disagreements since
> August, so I think we should make some decision about this patch,
> instead of just moving it from one CF to the next one. The "needs
> review" status seems not reflecting the situation.
>
> Are there any plans to post a new version of the patch with a different
> design, or something like that? If not, I propose we mark it either as
> rejected or returned with feedback (and maybe get a new patch in the
> future).
I assumed it was rejected.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
