Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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. > > I've spent some time looking at it and have made all the comments I > wished to make. The design seems clear and fit for purpose, having read > KaiGai's excellent Wiki description of how it all fits together and also > read some PDF links Bruce sent out.
Thanks for your comment, although you also have a tough work. > But I've not had time to look at the whole patch and my contacts have > not had sufficient time to do anything meaningful with it either. > > If we can minimise the impact on normal running and it doesn't have any > implications for robustness, it should be OK. Surely we should give it a > quick review to see if it has any gotchas. If not, and KaiGai is willing > to commit to supporting it, then should be good to go. KaiGai isn't a > home hacker, he's a lead developer for a major multinational, so we > should be able to take his word if he says he will continue to > contribute fixes if problems are found. If we don't commit to him and > his company then they won't commit to us either. Needless to say, I will continue to support the feature. I cannot understand why is it necessary to disappear from here. At least, a binary with "--enable-selinux" passes all regression test with/without "pgace_feature=selinux". The benchmark results I have is a bit legacy, so it is necessary to record it again, but I don't think it gives significant implications on normal running (pgace_feature=none). (Yes, it indeed gives us performance loss with selinux-enabled, but we assume performance is not the first priority in this case.) > The process works like this: software gets developed, then it gets > certified. If its not certified, then Undercover Elephant will not be > used by the secret people. We can't answer the "will it be certified?" > question objectively yet. If we have someone willing to write the > software and put it forward for certification then we should trust that > it probably will pass certification and if it doesn't we will see > further patches to allow that to happen. -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
