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

Re: Pl/Python -- current maintainer?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>,James Robinson <jlrobins(at)socialserve(dot)com>,"Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,Hackers Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Pl/Python -- current maintainer?
Date: 2006-02-25 21:36:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
James William Pye wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> > And with even more love the restricted python from zope could
> > be ported so there could be a pl/python again :-)
> > 
> > Ok, just haluzinating ;)
> Not necessarily. ;)
> From what I have seen of zope's restricted python, it does, or can, force its
> restrictions by checking bytecode. I imagine a simple PL sitting on top of the
> untrusted varient that merely implements a custom validator that checks the
> bytecode produced by the untrusted PL's validator.

I'm not sure it's an issue now that we have pg_pltemplate, but in older
versions it's possible to create a language without setting a validator.
This would make the validator an unsuitable place for checking the
restrictions.  But the call handler can access the bytecode just the
same, so it's just a matter of moving the checks there, just before the

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2006-02-25 21:50:41
Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance
Previous:From: Clark C. EvansDate: 2006-02-25 21:35:38
Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group