On March 22, 2015 3:15:07 AM GMT+01:00, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:50:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Then there's the other discussion about using the security labels
structure for more than just security labels, which could end up
with a
lot of other
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:50:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Then there's the other discussion about using the security labels
structure for more than just security labels, which could end up with a
lot of other use-cases where the label is even larger.
OK, the attached patch adds a
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread.
We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most),
so I didn't think it leads any problem
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
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
On 2014-10-11 18:19:05 -0300, Fabrízio 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
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2014-10-11 18:19:05 -0300, Fabrízio 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
Hi,
postgres=# SELECT oid::regclass, reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname IN
('pg_seclabel', 'pg_shseclabel');
oid | reltoastrelid
---+---
pg_seclabel | 3598
pg_shseclabel | 0
(2 rows)
Isn't that a somewhat odd choice? Why do we
On 2014-07-04 11:50:17 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
postgres=# SELECT oid::regclass, reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname IN
('pg_seclabel', 'pg_shseclabel');
oid | reltoastrelid
---+---
pg_seclabel | 3598
pg_shseclabel |
Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread.
We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most),
so I didn't think it leads any problem actually.
On the other hands, pg_seclabel was merged in another development cycle.
We didn't have deep discussion
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread.
We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most),
so I didn't think it leads any problem actually.
On the other hands, pg_seclabel was merged in another
11 matches
Mail list logo
