On Jan 27, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > [ shrug...] I see little point in repeating myself yet again. > It's obvious that the people who want this are entirely willing > to adopt a Pollyanna-ishly optimistic view about its potential > to cause serious problems that we may or may not be able to fix.
Well, no. The problems you raise already exist in plperlu. And I would argue that they're worse there, as the DBA can give others permission to create PL/PerlU functions, and those users can do all kinds of crazy shit with them. on_perl_init can be executed the DBA only. It's scope is far less. This is *safe* than PL/PerlU, while given more capability to PL/Perl. > I don't really expect to be able to prevent something along this line > from getting committed --- I'm merely hoping to circumscribe it as much > as possible and get large WARNING items into the manual's description. Oh, absolutely. Your sober attention to security issues is greatly appreciated by us fanboys. Best, David PS: I'm a PostgreSQL fanboy, not a Tom Lane fanboy. ;-P -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
