Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
Date: 2008-02-26 20:43:40
Message-ID: 200802261543.41864.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tuesday 26 February 2008 12:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > There are a lot of people who have a database provider of some sort who
> > creates a database for them, giving them ownership of that specific
> > database, with pg_hba.conf specifying connection only to that db. They
> > are then free to muck about that database, installing anything they want,
> > but they cannot load any procedural languages since they only have
> > non-superuser accounts. (This does give them access to plsql, but not
> > plpgsql).
>
> This is no longer true. Please read the whole thread.
>

Interesting, seems pghackers dropped me from the list, so I missed several
messages in the thread. While wrangling with majordomo, I had time to
reflect that we're still causing issues for setups where you aren't db owner,
though I dont know what the breakdown is for these types of setups. (Although
since many 3rd party apps try to run as unprivileged users, I'm sure it's
more of a pain than people think)

*shrug*

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-02-26 21:13:57 Required make version
Previous Message Neil Conway 2008-02-26 20:26:11 Re: Two Coverity Scan volunteers needed