Re: 8.4 release planning

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning
Date: 2009-01-27 18:44:46
Message-ID: 20348.1233081886@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> It does seem weird to simply omit records rather than throw an error

> The presumption is that if you know the data exists but can't access it
> directly, you'll use indirect methods to derive what it is. But if you
> don't even know it exists, then you won't look for it.

Right, which is why it's bad for something like a foreign key constraint
to expose the fact that the row does exist after all.

> There's a level above that which I don't think SEPostgres implements,
> which is data substitution, in which you see different data according to
> what security level you are. While this may seem insane for a business
> application, for military-support applications it makes some sense.

I think it might be possible to build such a thing using views, but I
agree that the patch doesn't give it to you for free.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-01-27 18:45:47 Re: Commitfest infrastructure (was Re: 8.4 release planning)
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-27 18:42:35 Re: Hot standby, recovery infrastructure