s...@samason.me.uk (Sam Mason) writes: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 01:42:32PM +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >> In some cases, the clearance of infoamtion may be changed. We often >> have dome more complex requirements also. > > OK, so there is some other trusted entity that has unfettered access to > both databases and its job is to manage these requirements.
No, that's not what this implies. What this implies is along the following lines... If a user at the "more secret" level updates some data that had been classified at a lower level, then that data gets reclassified at the higher level. If this sort of outcome is problematic, then that suggests that maybe the attempt at sharing wasn't such a good idea. >> Thus, it is necessary a capability to store and manage data objects >> with different security labeles in a single database instance here. >> (If we don't want to use commercial solutions instead.) > > SE-PG is about doing the above in one database and allowing more > rigorous checks to be done? I don't think the issue is so much about "more rigorous"; it's about having mandatory labelling that is handled consistently. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.sesabatadxunil" "@" "enworbbc")) http://linuxdatabases.info/info/rdbms.html The people's revolutionary committee has decided that the name "e" is retrogressive, unmulticious and reactionary, and has been flushed. Please update your abbrevs. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
