Re: Potential security risk associated with function call

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jet <zhangchenxi(at)halodbtech(dot)com>
Cc: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Potential security risk associated with function call
Date: 2026-03-10 15:22:48
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob1YxJW9WVje0ua1UDuack0z2OpmonbooobfmfKZOA+pQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:05 AM Jet <zhangchenxi(at)halodbtech(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think it just for fun. People may prefer to use EXTENSION, but the
> problem is may the EXTENSION was written by a person who don't have full
> skills with extension developing or even without any code experience but only
> using AI. Just in the case I notice the problem. AI doing all the things and on
> most cases it works well but leave potential risks. Will the end user really to
> study the whole EXTENSION code? I can ensure most of them will not. And AI
> will take over to do the most of coding works, that iss what happening...

Sure, but what do you propose to do about it? As I have already said,
there's no realistic way for PostgreSQL itself to know what the
correct function definition is.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2026-03-10 15:32:29 Re: ALTER TABLE: warn when actions do not recurse to partitions
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2026-03-10 15:14:17 Re: Change initdb default to the builtin collation provider