Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications
От | A.M. |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42DC6C8F-1491-46B6-93C8-9294C49A3763@themactionfaction.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 25, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> writes: >> Yes, that seems reasonable. The fact that you're still talking about >> "confined users" is slightly worrying and would seem to imply that >> there is still a superuser/normal user divide--it's probably just a >> terminology thing though. > > There had better still be superusers. Or do you want the correctness > of your backups to depend on whether your SELinux policy is correct? > The first time somebody loses critical data because SELinux suppressed > it from their pg_dump output, they're going to be on the warpath. This behavior is no different than when taking/using an SE-enabled filesystem backup. And woe to the "admin" who doesn't test his backups- caveat emptor. Still, it would be nice if pg_dump warned or stopped if the backup it created was completely useless (missing data dependencies), no? Cheers, M
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: