Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Volpe <volpe(dot)mark(at)epa(dot)gov>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Date: 2001-06-24 11:56:13
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106241355430.900-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> Overall, the only objection I can see to doing things this way is that
> we have to do it over again for each function language (eg, adding such
> a thing to SQL functions is doable, but much more tedious than for
> plpgsql). But it seems more flexible than the pg_proc-attribute
> approach.

Both approaches could be complementary, like they are in Unix as well.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-24 14:59:07 Re: Extracting metadata about attributes from catalog
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-06-24 11:55:22 Re: Setuid functions