| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RustgreSQL |
| Date: | 2017-01-10 01:12:38 |
| Message-ID: | 9ef81dc2-0659-4a1b-3d74-f4797994e965@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/9/17 3:15 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> The running unsafe PL in own managed processes is good idea - Years, I
> have a one diploma theme "better management of unsafe PL in Postgres" -
> but still without any interest from students :(. I had two
> possibilities to see catastrophic errors related to wrong usage of
> PLPerlu. If we can locks interpret/environment in some safe sandbox,
> then it should be great.
Incidentally, Tom just observed in another thread that Tcl treats out of
memory as a panic situation, so anyone using pltcl opens the risk of
arbitrary database-wide panics. Fenced pltcl is one possible solution
for that problem.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-10 01:22:19 | Re: RustgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-10 01:02:48 | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |