Re: SE-PgSQL developer documentation (Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363))
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SE-PgSQL developer documentation (Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363)) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4AE7FADC.2070808@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SE-PgSQL developer documentation (Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363)) (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SE-PgSQL developer documentation (Re: Reworks for
Access Control facilities (r2363))
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> 2009/10/27 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>: >>> - no statement support to specify security context. >>> (It makes impossible to add support in pg_dump. Is it really OK?) >> I doubt that anything without pg_dump support would be even vaguely OK... > > In my previous experience, it enabled to reduce 300-400 lines of the patch. > But here is no more sense than the 300-400 lines. > > In my honest, I like to include a feature to specify an explicit security > context in the patch from the begining. > (It also allows to attach test cases with more variations.) Can you explain why that's required for pg_dump support? I was thinking that there would be no explicit security labels on objects, and permissions would be checked based on other inherent properties of the object, like owner, name, schema etc. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: