> * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > Kohei KaiGai wrote: > > > Unfortunately, I could not get consensus of design on selinux policy side. > > > Even though my opinion is to add individual security class for > > > materialized > > > view to implement refresh permission, other people has different opinion. > > > So, I don't want it shall be a blocker of v9.3 to avoid waste of time. > > > Also, I'll remind selinux community on this issue again, and tries to > > > handle > > > in another way from what I proposed before. > > > > Did we get this fixed? > > I don't think so, but it's something I'm interested in and have an > envrionment where I can work on it. > > Will look into it and try to provide an update soon. > > Any further thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. > Ah, yes, the issue has been kept unhandled.
May I remind selinux folks again, to add "db_materialized_view" class? Or, Stephan, do you have idea to apply equivalent checks on refresh operation? Thanks, -- NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project 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
