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

Re: Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joe Conway <joe(at)conway-family(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Date: 2001-06-02 14:49:11
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106021647580.763-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane writes:

> Two versions, one that takes an oid and one that takes a name, might be
> convenient.  The name version will probably have to accept qualified
> names (schema.table) once we have schema support

Will you expect the function to do dequoting etc. as well?  This might get
out of hand.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Maks N. PoluninDate: 2001-06-02 14:50:59
Subject: large objects dump
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-06-02 14:47:48
Subject: Re: Proceeding with gettext

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-02 15:04:05
Subject: Re: Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-02 14:39:39
Subject: Re: show all;

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