Re: plperl security

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, plperlng-devel(at)pgfoundry(dot)org
Subject: Re: plperl security
Date: 2004-07-05 22:03:21
Message-ID: 40E9D029.7010608@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>The thing is that unlike TCL we have one interpreter for both trusted
>>and untrusted cases.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>My thinking is to factor out all the code that only applies to trusted
>>cases from the interpreter init code, and only call it if we try to
>>compile a trusted function and it hasn't been run yet. Does that seem
>>reasonable?
>>
>>
>
>That would work. You'd need two state flags instead of just one, but
>that doesn't seem bad.
>
>

2?

'splain please :-)

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-07-05 22:13:17 Re: plperl security
Previous Message elein 2004-07-05 22:01:04 Re: strange bug in plperl