KaiGai Kohei wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> 2009/10/27 KaiGai Kohei <kai...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
