Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > >> If we decide not to support SE-Linux, it is unlikely we will be adding >> support for any other external security systems because SE-Linux has the >> widest adoption. >> >> I think the big question is whether we are ready to extend Postgres to >> support additional security infrastructures. > > PostgreSQL is the most security-conscious of the OSS databases, and is > widely used by certain groups (security software, military, credit card > processing) precisely because of this reputation. These folks, while > unlikely to speak up on -hackers, are interested in new/further security > features; when I was at the Pentagon 2 years ago several people there > from HS were quite interested in SE-Postgres specifically. Further, > I've been mentioning SE-Postgres in my "DB security talk" for the last > 18 months and I *always* get a question about it. > > So while there might not be vocal proponents for innovative/hard-core > security frameworks on this list currently, I think it will gain us some > new users. Maybe more than we expect.
Good, I also have gotten many voices, questions and requirements from the viewpoints of enterprise users who make plans to launch their SaaS system typically. Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers