Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: modules

From: "Tom Dunstan" <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: modules
Date: 2008-04-03 15:33:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

>  If this were at all true we would not not have seen the complaints from
> people along the lines of "My ISP won't install contrib". But we have, and
> quite a number of times. We have concrete evidence that calling it contrib
> actually works against us.

It's hard to see ISPs who won't install contrib from installing
${random module} from the big bad internet as has been discussed in
this thread, but who knows?

If we go with a solution that allows users to say "install mymodule;"
or whatever into their own database, is there any reason not to
install (as in make install) all modules currently called contrib by
default? Are there any security issues with modules in there? I seem
to remember something coming up involving dblink a while back...



In response to

  • Re: modules at 2008-04-03 14:55:39 from Andrew Dunstan


  • Re: modules at 2008-04-03 15:47:12 from Joshua D. Drake

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2008-04-03 15:46:05
Subject: Re: COPY Transform support
Previous:From: Mark MielkeDate: 2008-04-03 15:32:37
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-04-03 15:47:12
Subject: Re: modules
Previous:From: Ivan Sergio BorgonovoDate: 2008-04-03 15:32:54
Subject: Re: is it helpful for the optimiser/planner to add LIMIT 1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group