|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 09:04:29AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > This assignment is on todo list and has a benefit of providing an
> > additional defense against SQL-injection attacks.
> This is on the todo list? Really? It seems unlikely to be worth the
> backwards-compatibility breakage. I certainly doubt that we could
> get away with unconditionally rejecting such cases with no "off" switch,
> as you have here.
> > Previous mailing list discussion is here
> > <https://email@example.com>
> That message points out specifically that we *didn't* plan to do this.
> Perhaps back then (ten years ago) we could have gotten away with the
> compatibility breakage, but now I doubt it.
I might have added that one; the text is:
Consider disallowing multiple queries in PQexec()
as an additional barrier to SQL injection attacks
and it is a "consider" item. Should it be moved to the Wire Protocol
Changes / v4 Protocol section or removed?
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
|Next Message||Venkata B Nagothi||2017-02-28 14:14:42||Re: patch proposal|
|Previous Message||Peter Moser||2017-02-28 14:09:05||Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types|