| From: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interpretation of TRUSTED |
| Date: | 2005-02-09 02:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1107914523.354.16.camel@jeff |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 14:51 -0800, elein wrote:
> An untrusted language is so because of what it can do and cannot do.
> An untrusted language cannot access the filesystem, for example.
>
There is a bit of confusion in the terminology. Trusted means that the
language has been deemed "safe", i.e. it cannot do things like access
the filesystem. An untrusted language is not safe, i.e. it can do things
that you would not want an ordinary user to do.
I can see how someone would be easily confused about the terminology,
and I have to think about it each time. Trusted vs. untrusted refers to
the language, not the user of the language.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-09 04:18:06 | Re: Connect By for 8.0 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-02-08 23:21:31 | Re: Interpretation of TRUSTED |