From: | Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Fwd: Procedural Languages |
Date: | 2012-05-31 18:49:23 |
Message-ID: | CAOzAquJqSNbQzMXFO=fNVM1nZiUXkRFntERqOVGTx6eirPauXg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>
Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Procedural Languages
To: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>wrote:
> Michael Nolan wrote:
>
>> PL/pgSQL and PL/perlu are the only ones I use. I use PL/perlu primarily
>> to launch shell scripts from triggers, for example to update an external
>> website when a row in a table has been inserted, deleted or updated.
>>
>
> There is also another way to do what you describe that might be more
> secure.
>
> Rather than having the DBMS launch shell scripts directly, instead use
> LISTEN/NOTIFY messaging, where the trigger posts a message, and you have an
> ordinary client script listening for them, and the client script launches
> the shell scripts when it gets a message.
>
> This way, you need a persistent client script, but you don't need to
> invoke the shell in the DBMS ... or use the untrusted version of PL/Perl if
> that's all it was for.
>
> -- Darren Duncan
>
Anybody have examples of a persistent client script?
--
Mike Nolan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2012-05-31 19:31:41 | Re: Fwd: Procedural Languages |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-05-31 18:34:32 | Re: Procedural Languages |