Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To:
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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: 2010-05-23 22:14:24
Message-ID: 4BF9A8C0.80605@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So... can we get back to coming up with a reasonable
>> definition,
>
> (1) no access to system calls (including file and network I/O)

If a PL has file access to it's own sandbox (similar to what
flash seems to do in web browsers), could that be considered
trusted?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-05-24 00:38:14 Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2010-05-23 20:48:19 Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user