| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Specification for Trusted PLs? |
| Date: | 2010-05-21 19:13:22 |
| Message-ID: | 22522.1274469202@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
>> Well, the best way to define what a trusted language can do is to
>> define a *whitelist* of what it can do, not a blacklist of what it
>> can't do.
> No, that's exactly backwards. We can't define all the things a language
> can do, but we can certainly lay out the things that it is not supposed to.
Yeah. The whole point of allowing multiple PLs is that some of them
make it possible/easy to do things you can't (easily) do in others.
So I'm not sure that a whitelist is going to be especially useful.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-21 19:15:27 | Re: Specification for Trusted PLs? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-05-21 19:03:40 | small exclusion constraints patch |