| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec() |
| Date: | 2017-02-28 14:04:29 |
| Message-ID: | 2111.1488290669@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9236.1167968298@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Moser | 2017-02-28 14:09:05 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-02-28 14:01:39 | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |