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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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