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

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

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