Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200901290503.n0T53Ip24938@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable
Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > I don't think partitioning is really the same thing as row-level > > security. > > Of course not, but it seems to me that it can be used to accomplish most > of the same practical use-cases. The main gripe about doing it via > partitioning is that the user's nose gets rubbed in the fact that there > can't be an enormous number of different security classifications in the > same table (since he has to explicitly make a partition for each one). > But the proposed implementation of row-level security would poop out > pretty darn quick for such a case, too, and frankly I'm not seeing an > application that would demand it. OK, putting on my crazy idea hat, if we split the primary and foreign keys by partition, it would give us polyinstantiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyinstantiation because our unique indexes do not apply across partitions. Polyinstantiation is a desirable security feature and one that would be tough to implement without partitions. -- 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: