On 2014-10-11 18:19:05 -0300, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> So maybe we should get rid of the toast table for pg_seclabel. One > less > > >> catalog table for a feature that hardly anyone is using seems like a > fine > > >> idea to me ... > > > > > Is this still an open item? > > > > I haven't done anything about it ... > > > > If the final decision is get rid the toast table for pg_seclabel and as > I've time then I did it.
I still think this the wrong direction. I really fail to see why we want to restrict security policies to some rather small size. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
