On Thursday 11 December 2008 20:32:25 Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, the objection I was raising is that they should control the same
> thing. Otherwise we are simply inventing an invasive, high-cost,
> nonstandard(*) feature that we have had zero field demand for.
There is certainly a rather big field demand for row-level security. I'm not
sure about SELinux integration, though, or which one of the two you were
referring to.
The trick, of course, is to make it work well. That would usually require the
polyinstantiation approach, and I am disappointed that that was apparently
not chosen here.