> To quote:
> "By default, PostgreSQL is probably the most security-aware database
> available ..."
> Database Hacker's Handbook
> Lithcfield et. al.
> I'm gonna see if we can use the quote for our front page ...
Based on the sample chapter, the book looks pretty nifty, too.
I love their two suggestions near the end of that chapter:
1. Don't believe the documentation
In theory, the "non-marketing dependance" of PostgreSQL ought to
mean that the documentation is capable of being more honest, but
even so, it's an interesting approach ;-).
2. That security analysts implement their own client
The issue, which, to some degree, we see with psql, is that the
default clients somewhat "sanitize" requests. Sanity tends to be
a good thing, better than insanity :-), but it's hard to hit some
of the race conditions without the lack of sanitation...
I probably ought to do this some time; it would be a useful
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc"))
If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2005-08-18 16:13:36|
|Subject: Open Source TCO talk wanted for OSDBC -- Deadline tommorrow!|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2005-08-17 13:05:27|
|Subject: Re: Publishing and PostgreSQL|