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

Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation
Date: 2008-01-28 14:40:41
Message-ID: 162867790801280640x3c01d629y1a2a224624974263@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On 28/01/2008, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 2:26 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > sure, but do you know, Tom dislikes new columns in pg_proc :).
>
> Tom doesn't seem to like the idea of obfuscation of function code much
> either :-)
>
> > This
> > patch is usable sample of one possible solution and doesn't need
> > initdb. And there is dependency on pgcrypto :(. But it is simply and
> > it does all what is expected. Some customers wonted it. But I am not
> > sure if similar patch can be accepted - this is prototype. And when
> > I'll have some signals so patch can be commited I'll send final
> > version with obfuscate col in pg_proc. Any patch of pg_proc needs two
> > hours of work, and any change needs actualization - so lot of maybe
> > useless work.
>
> Yeah, I realise tweaking pg_proc is a large job, and wouldn't expect
> you to necessarily do it immediately - I just wanted to throw my
> requirements from a tools perspective into the inevitable discussion.

with "obfuscate" col in pg_proc source can be little bit more readable
and robust - current patch is +/- fast hack - so your requirement is
accurate.

Regards
Pavel
.

>
> Cheers, Dave.
>

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-01-28 14:55:56
Subject: Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-01-28 14:34:06
Subject: Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation

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