Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues
Date: 2007-06-14 17:26:38
Message-ID: 16101.1181841998@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> O.k. I am not trying to throw any cold water on this, but with the
> limitations we are suggesting, does the patch gain us anything over just
> leaving tsearch in contrib?

Well, if you want to take a hard-nosed approach, no form of the patch
would gain us anything over leaving it in contrib, at least not from a
functionality standpoint. The argument in favor has always been about
perception, really: if it's a "core" feature not an "add-on", then
people will take it more seriously. And there's a rather weak
ease-of-use argument that you don't have to install a contrib module.
(The idea that it's targeted at people who can't or won't install a
contrib module is another reason why I think we can skip user-defined
parsers and dictionaries ...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-06-14 17:29:53 Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-06-14 17:09:20 Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-06-14 17:29:53 Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-06-14 17:09:20 Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues