| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
| Date: | 2012-11-16 04:38:18 |
| Message-ID: | 50A5C33A.2030107@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/16/2012 03:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The biggest problem this patch has had from the very beginning is
> overdesign, and this is more of the same. Let's please just define the
> feature as "popen, not fopen, the given string" and have done. You can
> put all the warning verbiage you want in the documentation. (But note
> that the server-side version would be superuser-only in any flavor of
> the feature.)
I concede that as server-side COPY is superuser-only already it doesn't
offer the same potential for attack that it otherwise would. If
applications take unchecked file system paths from users and feed them
into a superuser command they already have security problems.
I'd still be much happier to have COPY ... FROM PROGRAM - or something -
to clearly make the two different, for clarity as much as security.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2012-11-16 04:42:32 | Re: Problem Observed in behavior of Create Index Concurrently and Hot Update |
| Previous Message | Phil Sorber | 2012-11-16 04:38:09 | Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility |