From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Specification for Trusted PLs? |
Date: | 2010-05-21 18:57:23 |
Message-ID: | 20100521185723.GX21875@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> So... can we get back to coming up with a reasonable
> definition, and
Guess I'm wondering if we could steal such a definition from one of the
languages we allow as trusted already.. Just a thought. I certainly
think we should make sure that we document how untrusted languages are
handled from the PG point of view (eg: can't change ownership).
> if somebody wants to write some regression tests, all
> the better?
I certainly am fine with that to the extent that they want to work on
that instead of hacking PG.. Guess I just don't think it should be a
priority for us to come up with a signifigant regression suite for
pieces that are supposedly being externally managed.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-05-21 19:03:40 | small exclusion constraints patch |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2010-05-21 18:53:19 | Re: Specification for Trusted PLs? |