Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: >> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >>> The problem, in words of one syllable, is that we are not sure we want >>> it. Do you see a user community clamoring for SEPostgres, or a hacker >>> community that is willing or able to maintain it? > >> No, it doesn't have as large a user base as the Windows port or >> integrated text search. On the other hand, there *are* users out there, >> and hackers, who are willing and interested in it for PostgreSQL because >> it would give them an alternative to the de-facto standards. > > Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the > whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to > expend any real effort. But this patch is far too large and invasive > to accept on the basis that only one guy understands it and will/might > continue to maintain it.
The matter we're currently faced can be called as like a disconnection between OSS communities. At least, as several folks introduced in this thread, security focused people are strongly waiting for SE-PostgreSQL feature upstreamed. However, we have a wall to be overed, if they join to review the patches, because most of security experts are not database experts (familiar to its internal architectures). In addition, I have hesitated to involve security experts due to the discussion will need deep knowledge about its internal architectures. But I think Bruce's suggestion is whorthwhile. At least, it is a case we need cross-community discussion. > I'll risk being rude to make my point: those who want SEPostgres in core > need to put up or shut up. Now, not at some future time. We need > people to sign off that this patch implements the features they want > (not "sounds roughly like some vague future need I might have") and does > so correctly. An incorrect security feature is considerably worse than > useless. And once it's in core we aren't going to have a whole lot of > elbow room to change the definition later. At least, the security design of SE-PostgreSQL has been accepted for two years in SELinux community. An evidence is its upstreamed security policy (reference policy) contains rules for SE-PostgreSQL. http://oss.tresys.com/repos/refpolicy/trunk/policy/modules/services/postgresql.te Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers