* 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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2010-05-21 19:03:40|
|Subject: small exclusion constraints patch|
|Previous:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2010-05-21 18:53:19|
|Subject: Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?|