| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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: | 2010-05-27 15:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | 201005271523.o4RFNig15835@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Agreed. As long as a trusted language can do things outside the
> > database only by going through a database and calling some function to
> > which the user has rights, in an untrusted language, that seems decent
> > to me. A user with permissions to launch_missiles() would have a
> > function in an untrusted language to do it, but there's no reason an
> > untrusted language shouldn't be able to say "SELECT
>
> s/untrusted/trusted/ here, right?
One thing that has always bugged me is that the use of
"trusted/untrusted" for languages is confusing, because it is "trusted"
users who can run untrusted languages. I think "trust" is more
associated with users than with software features. I have no idea how
this confusion could be clarified.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-27 15:24:11 | 9.0beta2 release plans |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-05-27 15:20:48 | Re: quoting and recovery.conf |