KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Apart from SELinux, it is quite natural to apply any access
> controls on binary data. If we could not have any valid access
> controls, users will not want to store their sensitive
> information, such as confidential PDF files, as a large object.
Absolutely. The histori
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> I just looked over the latest version of this patch and it seems to satisfy
>> all the issues suggested by the initial review. This looks like it's ready
>> for a committer from a quality perspective and I'm going to ma
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> I just looked over the latest version of this patch and it seems to satisfy
> all the issues suggested by the initial review. This looks like it's ready
> for a committer from a quality perspective and I'm going to mark it as such.
>
yes. i ha
Greg Smith wrote:
> I just looked over the latest version of this patch and it seems to
> satisfy all the issues suggested by the initial review. This looks like
> it's ready for a committer from a quality perspective and I'm going to
> mark it as such.
Thanks for your efforts.
> I have a gue
I just looked over the latest version of this patch and it seems to
satisfy all the issues suggested by the initial review. This looks like
it's ready for a committer from a quality perspective and I'm going to
mark it as such.
I have a guess what some of the first points of discussion are go
The attached patch is an updated revision of Largeobject Access Controls.
List of updates:
* rebased to the latest CVS HEAD
* SGML documentation fixes:
- The future version number was replaced as:
"In the 8.4.x series and earlier release, ..."
- Other strange English representations and t
