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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |