-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
>> Well, the best way to define what a trusted language can do is to >> define a *whitelist* of what it can do, not a blacklist of what it >> can't do. That's the only way to get a complete definition. It's then >> up to the implementation step to figure out how to represent that in >> the form of tests. > Yes, PL/Perl is following this approach. For a whitelist see > plperl_opmask.h (generated by plperl_opmask.pl at build phase). Ah, okay, I can mostly agree with that. My objection was with trying to build a cross-language generic whitelist. But it looks like the ship has already sailed upthread and we've more or less got a working definition. David, I think you started this thread, I assume you have some concrete reason for asking about this (new trusted language?). May have been stated, but I missed it. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201005241025 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkv6jE4ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjWugCdEwR/n0V3IeFB7w/h5hhPQW/J ln0An2FZKa2CHWaWdHKOvQvEbBIvyzwK =wqO5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
