On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:25 AM Joshua Brindle
<joshua.brindle@crunchydata.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I remain of the opinion that this
> > patch should not concern itself with that, though.
>
> So you are saying that people can add new object types to PG with DAC
> permissions and not concern themselves with MAC capable hooks? Is that
> an official PG community stance?
I don't know that the community has an official position on that
topic, but I do not think it's reasonable to expect everyone who
tinkers with MAC permissions to try to make a corresponding equivalent
for DAC. The number of people using PostgreSQL with DAC is relatively
small, and the topic is extremely complicated, and a lot of hackers
don't really understand it well enough to be sure that whatever they
might do is right. I think it's reasonable to expect people who
understand DAC and care about it to put some energy into the topic,
and not just in terms of telling other people how they have to write
their patches.
I *don't* think it's appropriate for a patch that touches MAC to
deliberately sabotage the existing support we have for DAC or to just
ignore it where the right thing to do is obvious. But maintaining a
million lines of code is a lot of work, and I can't think of any
reason why the burden of maintaining relatively little-used features
should fall entirely on people who don't care about them.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
