| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Williamson <gwilliamson39(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
| Date: | 2009-08-04 03:18:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20090804031855.GJ23840@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com) wrote:
> I began to describe the list of abstraction layer functions (but not completed yet):
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL_Abstraction
I'm not really a huge fan of 'security_' as a prefix for these
functions, but I don't have a better suggestion right now.
The initial abstraction patch shouldn't include the security context
pieces. I realize that will be needed eventually, but the patch to do
the abstraction and to formally move permissions checking to aclchk.c
needs to stand alone. I'm also not sure that the API of having the
security context be returned as a Datum makes sense..
Doesn't security_table_permissions() need to know if the query is an
UPDATE or an INSERT?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-04 03:23:01 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-08-04 03:09:31 | Re: pg_proc.probin should become text? |