Re: pl/pgsql enabled by default

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pl/pgsql enabled by default
Date: 2005-05-07 23:22:55
Message-ID: 427D4DCF.5050808@samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> This is not really analogous, because those are already on

Which is my point: you're suggesting we retrofit a security policy onto
PG that does not apply to the vast majority of the base system -- and
that if applied would require fundamental changes.

> Indeed. But that doesn't mean that the principle isn't sound for
> both cases. I haven't seen an argument against that yet.

Security (in the limited sense of "disabling features by default") is
not free; there is a tradeoff between security and convenience, security
and administrative simplicity, and so on. Given that I have yet to see a
single substantive argument for pl/pgsql being a security risk that has
withstood any scrutiny, I don't see that the "security" side of the
tradeoff has a lot of merit.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-05-07 23:41:11 Re: Patch for collation using ICU
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-05-07 23:20:48 Re: Race conditions, race conditions!