From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: robertmhaas@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp
Subject: Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:33:05 -0400
Message-ID: <8579.1255714385@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <407d949e0910160945x6bb99198xb3c23b9554669361@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4AC5A14F.6050306@ak.jp.nec.com>
<20091012024604.GW17756@tamriel.snowman.net>
<4AD54082.9050001@ak.jp.nec.com>
<10495.1255627322@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4AD7CCDD.1070402@ak.jp.nec.com>
<407d949e0910160945x6bb99198xb3c23b9554669361@mail.gmail.com>
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> The first step is to add hooks which don't change the security model
> at all, just allow people to control the existing checks from their SE
> configuration.
This is in fact what the presented patch is meant to do. The issue is
about whether the hook placement is sane/useful/extensible. The main
problem I've got with the design is that it doesn't appear to work for
privilege checks made by add-on modules.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gsstark@mit.edu, kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com, sfrost@snowman.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp
Subject: Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363)
In-Reply-To: <8579.1255714385@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox