[HACKERS] we don't have a bugzilla
would seem like a good idea, no ? http://www.murrayc.com/blog/permalink/2008/04/25/postgresql-has-no-bugzilla/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Submission of Feature Request : RFC- for Implementing Transparent Data Encryption in P
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 18:21 +, sanjay sharma wrote: > overkill. Compliance requirement for storing private data arises from > each organizations own declared privacy policies and statutory bodies > like privacy commissioners and other privacy watchdogs. These > standards are not as strict as PCI, HIPPA or Sarnabes-Oxley > > Compliance with HIPPA regulation requires not only maintaining all > records of who created and updated the record but also who accessed > and viewed records, when and in what context. you'd be much better served in this case by implementing se-postgresql with an appropriate policy... it would allow you to do all that you need and more :-) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] wishlist for 8.4
hi there, I recently found myself trying to build a trigger to modify some fields in a good dozen similarly structured tables in which the similar columns had different names. in fact, I got stuck in pl/pgsql with the fact that there's no way to access the NEW tuple in an indirect way, having the name of the column in some variable. (I found that it could be done in plperl, but that left me with a taste of un-completeness...) so, I propose the use of NEW[variable_containing_the_column_name] (which can obviously be extended to any tuples) to allow such access. what do you experts think ? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
