| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| Date: | 2009-11-23 15:28:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4B0AAA23.7050200@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> As for having plpgsql installed by default, are there any security
>> implications?
>>
>
> Well, that's pretty much exactly the question --- are there? It would
> certainly make it easier for someone to exploit any other security
> weakness they might find. I believe plain SQL plus SQL functions is
> Turing-complete, but that doesn't mean it's easy or fast to write loops
> etc in it.
>
>
>
That's a bit harder argument to sustain now we have recursive queries, ISTM.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-23 15:35:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-11-23 15:24:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-23 15:35:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-23 15:26:16 | Re: Partitioning option for COPY |