Re: BYTEA / DBD::Pg change in 9.0 beta

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BYTEA / DBD::Pg change in 9.0 beta
Date: 2010-05-19 17:52:20
Message-ID: 60451.209.226.93.226.1274291540.squirrel@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 19, 2010 1:31 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, standard_conforming_strings is really a different case because of
> the SQL-injection security hazards with non-scs-aware client code.
> I don't see any comparable risk for bytea format.
>

Yeah, and the impact of this will be much more limited. I'd want quite a
bit of convincing to agree that we shouldn't turn it on right away.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-05-19 18:03:38 Re: Building the 64-bit Postgres
Previous Message BRUSSER Michael 2010-05-19 17:48:16 Building the 64-bit Postgres