Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: >> On 2012-12-05 13:18:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think you're wasting your time to imagine that that case will ever be >>> "fixed". Allowing the server to scribble on executable files would set >>> off all kinds of security alarm bells, and rightly so. If Postgres ever >>> did ship with such a thing, I rather imagine that I'd be required to >>> patch it out of Red Hat releases (not that SELinux wouldn't prevent >>> it from happening anyway).
> That part I did understand. I still can't be happy about it, but I won't > get back with any proposal where that's put into questions. That said, > while you're talking about it, what if it's an opt-in GUC? GUC or no GUC, it'd still be letting an unprivileged network-exposed application (PG) do something that's against any sane system-level security policy. Lipstick is not gonna help this pig. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers