Re: plperl security

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That would work. You'd need two state flags instead of just one, but
>>>that doesn't seem bad.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>'splain please :-)
>>
>>
>
>Maybe you weren't thinking of the same thing, but what I was imagining
>was one state flag to remember that you'd created the interpreter (and
>loaded the unsafe-func support into it), then a second one to remember
>whether you've loaded the safe-func support. There are various ways to
>represent this of course, but the point is there need to be three
>persistent states.
>
>
>
>

Ahh, ok. We already have a state var to remember the first part
(plperl_firstcall). Just need one new one I think.

cheers

andrew