Kohei KaiGai wrote: > Unfortunately, I could not get consensus of design on selinux policy side. > Even though my opinion is to add individual security class for materialized > view to implement refresh permission, other people has different opinion. > So, I don't want it shall be a blocker of v9.3 to avoid waste of time. > Also, I'll remind selinux community on this issue again, and tries to handle > in another way from what I proposed before.
Did we get this fixed? > 2013/7/5 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > >> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Kohei KaiGai wrote: > >>> I'll have a discussion about new materialized_view object class > >>> on selinux list soon, then I'll submit a patch towards contrib/sepgsql > >>> according to the consensus here. > > > >> Has this progressed? > > > >> Should we consider this a 9.3 release blocker? sepgsql already has a red > >> box > >> warning about its limitations, so adding the limitation that materialized > >> views are unrestricted wouldn't be out of the question. > > > > Definitely -1 for considering it a release blocker. If KaiGai-san can > > come up with a fix before we otherwise would release 9.3, that's great, > > but there's no way that sepgsql has a large enough user community to > > justify letting it determine the release schedule. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
