| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonathan Gonzalez V(dot)" <jonathan(at)abdiel(dot)eu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce psystem() to replace system() |
| Date: | 2026-08-12 17:05:36 |
| Message-ID: | bf4e5496-ec09-429e-b8df-7d450c721154@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11.08.26 01:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, I think your apparent ambition to have*zero* use of system()
> is a bridge too far. In particular:
>
>> There's an important topic related to using shell versus not a shell. In
>> some places like `archive_command` people may use `&&`, but this idea
>> aims to avoid this kind of behavior since it's not secure.
> I think breaking the existing definition of archive_command and
> similar GUCs is a nonstarter. You're going to make many users
> unhappy and only a tiny minority happier.
Right. The direction should be, you don't have to use archive_command.
There is already an alternative in archive_library, or indirectly by
using something like pg_receivewal. Similar alternatives could be
designed for other cases where a shell command appears in a public API.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-08-12 17:12:26 | Re: Introduce psystem() to replace system() |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2026-08-12 16:36:53 | Re: SQL-level pg_datum_image_equal |