On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Mike Palmiotto > <mike.palmio...@crunchydata.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >>>> While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not >>>> updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that it's >>>> not possible to define labels on partitioned tables. >>> >>> It works for me: >>> >>> rhaas=# load 'dummy_seclabel'; >>> LOAD >>> rhaas=# create table foo (a int, b text) partition by range (a); >>> CREATE TABLE >>> rhaas=# security label on table foo is 'classified'; >>> SECURITY LABEL >>> >>> What exactly is the problem you're seeing? >> >> IIRC the initial concern was that contrib/sepgsql was not updated for >> RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE, so the post-create hook would not work >> properly for partitioned tables. >> >> I've looked into it a bit and saw a post-alter hook in >> StoreCatalogInheritance1. It seems like it may just be an issue of >> adding the RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE to sepgsql_relation_post_create. > > I thought that kind of thing might be the issue, but it didn't seem to > match Stephen's description. Adding RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE to that > function seems like it would probably be sufficient to make that hook > work, although that would need to be tested, but there are numerous > other references to RELKIND_RELATION in contrib/sepgsql, some of which > probably also need to be updated to consider > RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE.
Agreed. > > In my view, this is really an enhancement to sepgsql to handle a new > PostgreSQL feature rather than a defect in the partitioning commit, so > I don't think it falls on Amit Langote (as the author) or me (as the > committer) to fix. There might similarly be updates to sepgsql to do > something with permissions on logical replication's new publication > and subscription objects, but we should similarly regard those as > possible new features, not things that Petr or Peter need to work on. I'll keep these items in mind for future reference. Thanks. > Note that sepgsql hasn't been updated to work with RLS yet, either, > but we didn't regard that as an open item for RLS, or if we did the > resolution was just to document it. I am not opposed to giving a > little more time to get this straightened out, but if a patch doesn't > show up fairly soon then I think we should just document that sepgsql > doesn't support partitioned tables in v10. sepgsql has a fairly > lengthy list of implementation restrictions already, so one more is > not going to kill anybody -- or if it will then that person should > produce a patch soon. Okay, I'll make sure I get something fleshed out today or tomorrow. -- Mike Palmiotto Software Engineer Crunchy Data Solutions https://crunchydata.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers