Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
Date: 2008-02-19 23:13:53
Message-ID: 47BB62B1.9000206@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:11:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> This has been proposed before, and rejected before. Have you got
>>> any new arguments?
>>>
>
>
>> The longer it's been since the last vuln in PL/PgSQL, the harder it is
>> to argue for having it not be there by default.
>>
>
> You are attacking a straw man, which is that the only argument against
> having PL/PgSQL installed is the risk of security holes in it.
>
>
>

I am having trouble locating the previous thread - can someone please
point me at it?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2008-02-19 23:25:44 Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-02-19 23:05:41 Re: Permanent settings