From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] function body actors (was: viewing source code) |
Date: | 2007-12-21 16:24:41 |
Message-ID: | 20071221162441.GH10918@crankycanuck.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 12:09:28AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Maybe a key management solution isn't required. If, instead of
> strictly wrapping a language with an encryption layer, we provide
> hooks (actors) that have the ability to operate on the function body
> when it arrives and leaves pg_proc, we may sidestep the key problem
> (leaving it to the user) and open up the doors to new functionality at
> the same time.
I like this idea much better, because the same basic mechanism can be used
for more than one thing, and it doesn't build in a system that is
fundamentally weak. Of course, you _can_ build a weak system this way, but
there's an important difference between building a fundamentally weak system
and making weak systems possible.
A
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-21 16:47:43 | Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-21 16:18:58 | Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-21 16:47:43 | Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-21 16:18:58 | Re: function body actors (was: [PERFORM] viewing source code) |