Re: plperl security

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, plperlng-devel(at)pgfoundry(dot)org
Subject: Re: plperl security
Date: 2004-07-05 22:13:17
Message-ID: 9643.1089065597@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-05 22:16:48 Re: Recovery Features
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-07-05 22:03:21 Re: plperl security