Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2015-03-22 Thread Andres Freund
On March 22, 2015 3:15:07 AM GMT+01:00, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:50:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Then there's the other discussion about using the security labels structure for more than just security labels, which could end up with a lot of other

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2015-03-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:50:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Then there's the other discussion about using the security labels structure for more than just security labels, which could end up with a lot of other use-cases where the label is even larger. OK, the attached patch adds a

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-10-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes: Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread. We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most), so I didn't think it leads any problem

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: So maybe we should get rid of the toast table for pg_seclabel. One less catalog table for a feature that hardly anyone is using seems like a fine idea to me ... Is this still an open item? I

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-10-11 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: So maybe we should get rid of the toast table for pg_seclabel. One less catalog table for a feature that hardly anyone is

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-10-11 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-10-11 18:19:05 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: So maybe we should get rid of the toast table for

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-10-11 Thread Stephen Frost
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: On 2014-10-11 18:19:05 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: So

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-07-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-07-04 11:50:17 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, postgres=# SELECT oid::regclass, reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname IN ('pg_seclabel', 'pg_shseclabel'); oid | reltoastrelid ---+--- pg_seclabel | 3598 pg_shseclabel |

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-07-04 Thread Kohei KaiGai
Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread. We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most), so I didn't think it leads any problem actually. On the other hands, pg_seclabel was merged in another development cycle. We didn't have deep discussion

Re: [HACKERS] No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

2014-07-04 Thread Tom Lane
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes: Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread. We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most), so I didn't think it leads any problem actually. On the other hands, pg_seclabel was merged in another