* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > SEPostgres seems qualitatively different to me, though. I think PG > people have avoided reviewing it because (a) they weren't interested in > it and (b) they knew they were unqualified to review it. > > Meanwhile it's emerging that the selinux people don't feel qualified to > review it either. I'm not quite sure what to do about that. But "throw > it in there on faith" doesn't sound like an appealing answer, and I've > got no idea how long it will take to work out a non-faith-based answer.
Erm, I have to say here that this strikes me as rather unfair. Perhaps
I'm wrong, but I suspect KaiGai feels pretty good about the patch and
his qualifications in both the PG realm and the SELinux realm. He's
asking the PG folks to review it because that's the process that the PG
community (through the CommitFest, etc) has laid out for getting a patch
included upstream. I'm confident KaiGai isn't going to just disappear
into the ether if the patch is committed.
Sure, it'd be nice if 4 or 5 other SELinux developers got in and
understood the PG code well enough to implement such a patch, but I
think the combination of KaiGai (overall), a seperate SELinux hacker
(for the security design and SELinux side of it), and a PG committer
(for where the hooks are placed and how), reviewing the patch and being
comfortable with it is quite sufficient for a high quality result.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
