Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?
Date: 2010-05-21 18:57:23
Message-ID: 20100521185723.GX21875@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> So... can we get back to coming up with a reasonable
> definition, and

Guess I'm wondering if we could steal such a definition from one of the
languages we allow as trusted already.. Just a thought. I certainly
think we should make sure that we document how untrusted languages are
handled from the PG point of view (eg: can't change ownership).

> if somebody wants to write some regression tests, all
> the better?

I certainly am fine with that to the extent that they want to work on
that instead of hacking PG.. Guess I just don't think it should be a
priority for us to come up with a signifigant regression suite for
pieces that are supposedly being externally managed.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2010-05-21 19:03:40 small exclusion constraints patch
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2010-05-21 18:53:19 Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?