I'm hoping that someone familiar with sepgsql can review this
portion of the materialized view patch and comment on whether it is
the best approach for dealing with the integration of these two
features. Basically, the patch as it stands treats a materialized
view as a table for purposes of sepgsql labels. I initially
invented new lables, but Robert suggested that this would make
materialized views unusable in an SE environment until the
corresponding labels were added at the OS level. It seems sane to
me because a materialized view exists on disk the same as a table,
but is populated differently -- from a view-like rule.
The portion of the patch which affects the contrib/sepgsql/ tree is
attached.
Thoughts?
-Kevin