Re: Where to stick function setuid

Where were we on this? Yes/No/Maybe?

Peter Eisentraut writes:

> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > > Btw., FunctionCallInvoke() would look to be the most prominent place to
> > > hook in the "setuid" feature. For that purpose I'd make the macro an
> > > inline function instead.
> >
> > Ugh. The performance cost would be excessive.
>
> In the path of a "normal" function call is only one extra `if (bool)'
> statement. There are certainly more "excessive" performance problems than
> that, no?
>
> > Instead, when fmgr is setting up to call a setuid function, have it
> > insert an extra level of function handler that does the
> > save/setup/restore of current UID.
>
> I don't quite understand. Do you mean like a PL function handler? But then
> this thing wouldn't work for external PL's unless we either have a setuid
> version of each or have nested handlers.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/