From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Mercer <jim(at)reptiles(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: hacker help: PHP-4.2.3 patch to allow restriction of |
Date: | 2002-09-27 01:15:35 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0209271101170.30942-100000@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> the following was sent to the php developer's list, and they came back with:
>
> > > Isn't it generally better (where "better" means more secure,
> > > efficient, and easily maintained) to handle database access
> > > control using PostgreSQL's native access mappings?
> >
> > I would think so, and IMHO, that's where pgsql access control
> > belongs, with pgsql.
I totally disagree. It is a language level restriction, not a database
level one, so why back it into Postgres? Just parse 'conninfo' when it is
pg_(p)connect() and check it against the configuration setting.
The patch seems fine. I am unsure as to how useful it is.
system("/usr/local/pgsql/bin/psql -U jim -c \"select 'i got
in';\" template1");
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Mercer | 2002-09-27 01:49:54 | Re: hacker help: PHP-4.2.3 patch to allow restriction of database access |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-09-27 01:00:16 | Cascaded Column Drop |