| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH] |
| Date: | 2010-02-03 19:15:56 |
| Message-ID: | 3CCBD590-1927-4F1E-960C-4CB0E9F53E15@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 3, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I was actually wondering about, however, is the extent to which
> the semantics of Perl code could be changed from an on_init hook ---
> is there any equivalent of changing search_path or otherwise creating
> trojan-horse code that might be executed unexpectedly?
Yes.
> And if so is
> there any point in trying to guard against it?
No. This is Perl we're talking about. The DBA should vet code before putting it into on_perl_init.
> AIUI there isn't
> anything that can be done in on_init that couldn't be done in somebody
> else's function anyhow.
Correct.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-03 19:15:58 | Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-02-03 19:13:43 | Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings |