Re: plperl vs. bytea

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com>
Subject: Re: plperl vs. bytea
Date: 2007-05-06 01:59:57
Message-ID: 549.1178416797@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> After discussing some possibilities, we decided that maybe
> the best approach would be to allow a custom GUC variable that would
> specify a list of types to be passed in binary form with no conversion, e.g.

> plperl.pass_as_binary = 'bytea, other-type'

At minimum this GUC would have to be superuser-only, and even then the
security risks seem a bit high. But the real problem with this thinking
is the same one I already pointed out to Theo: why do you think this
issue is plperl-specific?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-05-06 02:19:36 Re: plperl vs. bytea
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-05-06 01:49:54 Re: Integer datetimes