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

Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?
Date: 2010-05-21 19:13:22
Message-ID: 22522.1274469202@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
>> Well, the best way to define what a trusted language can do is to
>> define a *whitelist* of what it can do, not a blacklist of what it
>> can't do.

> No, that's exactly backwards. We can't define all the things a language 
> can do, but we can certainly lay out the things that it is not supposed to.

Yeah.  The whole point of allowing multiple PLs is that some of them
make it possible/easy to do things you can't (easily) do in others.
So I'm not sure that a whitelist is going to be especially useful.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-05-21 19:15:27
Subject: Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2010-05-21 19:03:40
Subject: small exclusion constraints patch

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