| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marcin Owsiany <marcin(at)owsiany(dot)pl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Security implications of (plpgsql) functions |
| Date: | 2002-10-21 16:39:51 |
| Message-ID: | 3DB42DD7.3040005@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Doug McNaught wrote:
> Solved the halting problem lately? ;)
nah -- I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader ;-)
> Someone determined to DoS could probably get around any practical
> implementation of your idea, using dummy argument, mutual recursion or
> whatever.
>
I see your point. I guess a max recursion limit would be the way to go.
Probably should be a configurable setting.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-21 16:44:41 | Re: [GENERAL] Security implications of (plpgsql) functions |
| Previous Message | Doug McNaught | 2002-10-21 16:27:20 | Re: [GENERAL] Security implications of (plpgsql) functions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-21 16:40:54 | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |
| Previous Message | Doug McNaught | 2002-10-21 16:27:20 | Re: [GENERAL] Security implications of (plpgsql) functions |