From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec() |
Date: | 2017-02-28 14:13:31 |
Message-ID: | 20170228141331.GK11339@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 09:04:29AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > This assignment is on todo list and has a benefit of providing an
> > additional defense against SQL-injection attacks.
>
> This is on the todo list? Really? It seems unlikely to be worth the
> backwards-compatibility breakage. I certainly doubt that we could
> get away with unconditionally rejecting such cases with no "off" switch,
> as you have here.
>
> > Previous mailing list discussion is here
> > <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9236.1167968298@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
> That message points out specifically that we *didn't* plan to do this.
> Perhaps back then (ten years ago) we could have gotten away with the
> compatibility breakage, but now I doubt it.
I might have added that one; the text is:
Consider disallowing multiple queries in PQexec()
as an additional barrier to SQL injection attacks
and it is a "consider" item. Should it be moved to the Wire Protocol
Changes / v4 Protocol section or removed?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Venkata B Nagothi | 2017-02-28 14:14:42 | Re: patch proposal |
Previous Message | Peter Moser | 2017-02-28 14:09:05 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |