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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)
Date
Msg-id 9834.1229020345@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:32:50 Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How can we stick all of these in the same column at the same time?
>> 
>> Why would we want to?

> Because we want to use SQL-based row access control and SELinux-based row 
> access control at the same time.  Isn't this exactly one of the objections 
> upthread?  Both must be available at the same time.

Well, the objection I was raising is that they should control the same
thing.  Otherwise we are simply inventing an invasive, high-cost,
nonstandard(*) feature that we have had zero field demand for.
        regards, tom lane

(*) Worse than nonstandard: it actively breaks semantics demanded by
the standard.  If I had my druthers we would flat out reject row-level
security filtering of any kind.  I don't want us to expend a lot of
effort implementing multiple kinds.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: benchmarking the query planner
Next
From: "Vladimir Sitnikov"
Date:
Subject: Re: benchmarking the query planner