Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: security checks for largeobjects?

From: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: security checks for largeobjects?
Date: 2009-06-23 01:38:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:31:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:18:51PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> MED is management of external data, whereas the large objects are
>>>> internal, no?
>>> It depends on your definition.  The lo interface is pretty much to
>>> objects on the file system directly.
>> LO's are transaction-controlled, and they're not (readily)
>> accessible from outside the database.  Seems rather completely
>> different from regular filesystem files.
> Not according to SQL/MED.
>> (In any case, there wasn't anything I liked about SQL/MED's ideas
>> about external files, so I'm not in favor of modeling LO management
>> after that.)
> Good point ;)
> Cheers,
> David.

I would like to develop the feature independent from SQL/MED.

OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-06-23 02:03:52
Subject: building without perl
Previous:From: Alan LiDate: 2009-06-23 00:29:44
Subject: Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group