| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disable large objects GUC |
| Date: | 2005-04-27 04:19:46 |
| Message-ID: | 17727.1114575586@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I wonder if there's any use for an allow_large_objects = true/false GUC
> parameter?
> It'd be nice to be able to switch it off as part of site policy so that
> the security holes in it aren't able to be exposed, plus you can
> guarantee as the site admin that pg_dumpall will produce a complete
> dump.
Security holes? Explain yourself please.
As for the latter point, ISTM the todo item is "fix pg_dumpall" more
than "eliminate large objects". Certainly the fix isn't easy, but
that isn't an argument to cut and run.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-04-27 04:29:39 | Re: Disable large objects GUC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-27 04:14:36 | Re: [PERFORM] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |