To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp
Subject: Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363) 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
	message dated "Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:45:54 +0100"
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:33:05 -0400
Message-ID: <8579.1255714385@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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