Re: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole?

From:	Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To:	Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc:	pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Re: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole?
Date:	2001-05-07 23:35:52
Message-ID:	23820.989278552@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views:	Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:	2001-05-06 17:14:46 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>  2001-05-06 17:23:03 from "Serguei Mokhov" <sa_mokho(at)alcor(dot)concordia(dot)ca>   2001-05-06 17:27:31 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>    2001-05-06 18:03:40 from Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>     2001-05-06 19:12:03 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>      2001-05-06 20:01:58 from "Joe Conway" <joe(at)conway-family(dot)com>    2001-05-06 18:35:49 from "Joe Conway" <joe(at)conway-family(dot)com>    2001-05-07 16:07:56 from Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>  2001-05-07 17:37:45 from Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>   2001-05-07 22:54:21 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>    2001-05-07 23:02:08 from Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>     2001-05-07 23:35:52 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>      2001-05-07 23:36:13 from Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Lists:	pgsql-hackers

In response to

• Re: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole? at 2001-05-07 23:02:08 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole? at 2001-05-07 23:36:13 from Bruce Momjian

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Bruce Momjian	2001-05-07 23:36:13	Re: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole?
Previous Message	Tom Lane	2001-05-07 23:35:03	CVS branch management (was Re: A problem with new pg_dump)