KaiGai Kohei wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > In general, I am concerned that the SE-Linux patch is not converging on > > a community consensus in terms of user interface or implementation > > details. This suggests that the patch might not succeed in being > > included in Postgres 8.4, which is a shame. > > It is extreamly worst.
Yes, agreed. > I have worked for this feature more than 2 years, and has waited for > opening the merge window of v8.4, because it was just after the feature > freeze of v8.3 when I first proposed SE-PostgreSQL on the list. > (I was not good at development process in the community.) > Yes, we got active discussion recent days which I waited for long term. > I don't want to wait for any more! > > > We are going to need to come up with specific answers to these issues > > soon. > > The origion of issue is simple. > > Whether we should support to activate (not only compile) two or more security > mechanism in same time, or not. > In my opinion, it is not a frequent situation, and it gives us several big > pains, but benefit is smaller than the pains. Yes. My concern is what other issues are going to come that we have not thought of yet. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
