| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Warning for missing createlang |
| Date: | 2003-09-06 16:52:13 |
| Message-ID: | 29546.1062867133@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I did see a reference in the archives to a problem with heavy recursion
> as a possible security hole. I guess my answer to that would be that if
> you are worried about it you should drop the language, but I don't see
> this alone as a reason not to install it by default. After all, you
> don't need plpgsql to bring the system to its knees :-)
Yeah, now that we allow recursion in SQL functions, you don't need a PL
language to overflow the stack. So that particular argument is seeming
a bit weak. Were there any other security arguments against making
plpgsql standard?
Inability to load existing pg_dump archives might be a bigger objection.
However, we could fix that if pg_restore were modified to not stop dead
in its tracks upon encountering an error. IMHO that was a wrong choice
from the beginning ... pg_dump scripts don't act that way, and
pg_restore should not either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marek Lewczuk | 2003-09-06 17:09:08 | Re: Needed function IF(expr, expr, expr) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-06 16:47:07 | Re: Needed function IF(expr, expr, expr) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-07 03:41:47 | MinGW patch |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-09-06 13:14:57 | Re: [PATCHES] Warning for missing createlang |