From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plpython implementation |
Date: | 2013-06-30 12:05:41 |
Message-ID: | 20130630120541.GA2950@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 01:49:53PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> I'm reading through plperl and plpython implementations and I don't
> understand the way they work.
>
> Comments for plperl say that there are two interpreters (trusted and
> untrusted) for each user session, and they are stored in a hash.
The point is that python has no version for untrusted users, since it's
been accepted that there's no way to build a python sandbox for
untrusted code. There was actually a small competition to make one but
it failed, since then they don't bother.
Perl does provide a sandbox, hence you can have two interpreters in a
single backend.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-06-30 12:13:13 | Re: plpython implementation |
Previous Message | Szymon Guz | 2013-06-30 11:49:53 | plpython implementation |