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

Re: security checks for largeobjects?

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Subject: Re: security checks for largeobjects?
Date: 2009-06-22 17:08:15
Message-ID: 20090622170815.GA9092@fetter.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:31:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:18:51PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> MED is management of external data, whereas the large objects are
> >> internal, no?
> 
> > It depends on your definition.  The lo interface is pretty much to
> > objects on the file system directly.
> 
> LO's are transaction-controlled, and they're not (readily)
> accessible from outside the database.  Seems rather completely
> different from regular filesystem files.

Not according to SQL/MED.

> (In any case, there wasn't anything I liked about SQL/MED's ideas
> about external files, so I'm not in favor of modeling LO management
> after that.)

Good point ;)

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Brendan JurdDate: 2009-06-22 17:16:08
Subject: Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-06-22 17:00:04
Subject: Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?

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