Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation
Date: 2008-01-29 02:29:43
Message-ID: 11005.1201573783@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> using this example, it seems to me that if we dump the encrypted/encoded 
> source and restore into another database with a different encoding, the 
> decoded/decrypted source will still be in the old database encoding, 
> i.e. not valid in the new database encoding. We've just gone around 
> closing doors like this.

Ah, right, I hadn't thought about that, but it would be a hazard.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2008-01-29 05:09:28
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Ron MayerDate: 2008-01-29 00:13:09
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group