On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:50, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:38, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Yeah the both is gross. How about:
>>>> plperl.on_init ?
>> Well its already in.
> Well *that's* easily fixed. I think it's a bad idea, because it's
> unclear what you should put there and what the security implications
I can't speak for its virtue, maybe Tim, Andrew?
> Two entirely separate init strings seems much easier to understand
> and administer.
I think people might quibble with you on that...
But I do agree that it seems redundant.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2010-02-03 08:06:03|
|Subject: Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH]|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-02-03 07:23:04|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication and SSL|