Re: Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joe Conway <joe(at)conway-family(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Date: 2001-06-02 14:49:11
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106021647580.763-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane writes:

> Two versions, one that takes an oid and one that takes a name, might be
> convenient. The name version will probably have to accept qualified
> names (schema.table) once we have schema support

Will you expect the function to do dequoting etc. as well? This might get
out of hand.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maks N. Polunin 2001-06-02 14:50:59 large objects dump
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-06-02 14:47:48 Re: Proceeding with gettext

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-02 15:04:05 Re: Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-02 14:39:39 Re: show all;