| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: getpid() function |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 04:48:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3D4A0F22.3C3B5443@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
...
> Perhaps a more relevant question is why are we cluttering the namespace
> with any such function at all? What's the use case for it? We've
> gotten along fine without one so far, and I don't really think that we
> *ought* to be exposing random bits of internal implementation details
> at the SQL level.
Actually, I was wondering the same thing, maybe for a different reason.
Exposing the backend internals could have security implications (though
don't make me concoct a scenario to prove it ;)
Although it might have some usefulness for debugging, I think it should
not be an "installed by default" feature, so istm would be a great
candidate for a contrib/ function or library. If someone needs it, it is
almost immediately available.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeb Fropiaz | 2002-08-02 04:56:20 | Recursion in SQL |
| Previous Message | Ron Harter | 2002-08-02 04:28:49 | Temporal Database |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-02 04:49:18 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-02 04:38:56 | Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ... |