Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200812120359.mBC3xFr26989@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268)
Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
We have had discussion on whether we want one or two security columns; there have been comments on both sides. Have we decided if we are going to use some type of integer on every row that points to a pg_security row or put the value right in the row? If we use some type of integer, I suggest using this structure for pg_security: CREATE TABLE pg_security( relid oid, secid int2, secacl aclitem[], secext TEXT); This allows the per-row value to be a simple int2. It also improves maintenance because rows are associated only with a specific table; unused values can then be removed more easily. And it allows both secacl and secext security to be specified. I am unsure how an insert into a 'security_context' column would automatically insert into pg_security however. I am also unclear how COPY would work. Also, having the per-row value always be present in the row and controlled by the bitmask seems ideal; it avoids having to add a CREATE TABLE option. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: