Gregory Stark wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:32:50 Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> How can we stick all of these in the same column at the same time?
>>> Why would we want to?
>> Because we want to use SQL-based row access control and SELinux-based row
>> access control at the same time. Isn't this exactly one of the objections
>> upthread? Both must be available at the same time.
>
> Well I don't think anyone would actually want them *at the same time*.
> Combining multiple security models would mean you aren't actually following
> any security model.
>
> But I don't like the idea of making it a compile-time switch. Having to ship
> separate packages for different compile-time options is really an awful
> solution from the distribution's point of view. And it doesn't scale either --
> if we got another such option they would have 2^n combinations.
>
> Distributions like to set distribution-wide policies like "compile with X
> support". It doesn't mean you can't run those programs without actually using
> that support, as in "emacs -nw". It would be nice to have the option at
> run-time of whether to use selinux or row-acl support instead.
>
> I think we need to separate out the --enable-selinux which would merely
> compile in the support for selinux from the switch to control whether we
> actually have selinux turned on. Make that either an initdb option or a
> per-database option like we have with collation/encoding.
>
> Then users can install a single package and decide whether they want to use
> selinux or row-acls. If their distribution decides not to compile in selinux
> support they just have one choice, row-acls (or nothing).
I agree the opinion.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>