| From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH] |
| Date: | 2010-02-03 07:46:38 |
| Message-ID: | 34d269d41002022346w7c714373p2262570a5367a9d7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:50, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:38, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Yeah the both is gross. How about:
>>>> plperl.on_plperl_init
>>>> plperl.on_plperlu_init
>>>> plperl.on_init ?
>> Well its already in.
>
> Well *that's* easily fixed. I think it's a bad idea, because it's
> unclear what you should put there and what the security implications
> are.
I can't speak for its virtue, maybe Tim, Andrew?
> Two entirely separate init strings seems much easier to understand
> and administer.
I think people might quibble with you on that...
But I do agree that it seems redundant.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-02-03 08:06:03 | Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH] |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-03 07:23:04 | Re: Streaming replication and SSL |