On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:23:44AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Agreed. As long as a trusted language can do things outside the > > > database only by going through a database and calling some > > > function to which the user has rights, in an untrusted language, > > > that seems decent to me. A user with permissions to > > > launch_missiles() would have a function in an untrusted language > > > to do it, but there's no reason an untrusted language shouldn't > > > be able to say "SELECT > > > > s/untrusted/trusted/ here, right? > > One thing that has always bugged me is that the use of > "trusted/untrusted" for languages is confusing, because it is > "trusted" users who can run untrusted languages. I think "trust" is > more associated with users than with software features. I have no > idea how this confusion could be clarified.
Sadly, I don't think it could short of a time machine. We're stuck with an backward convention. :( Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers