On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 09:04:29AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Surafel Temesgen <surafel3...@gmail.com> writes:
> > This assignment is on todo list and has a benefit of providing an
> > additional defense against SQL-injection attacks.
>
> This is on the todo list? Really? It seems unlikely to be worth the
> backwards-compatibility breakage. I certainly doubt that we could
> get away with unconditionally rejecting such cases with no "off" switch,
> as you have here.
>
> > Previous mailing list discussion is here
> > <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9236.1167968...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
> That message points out specifically that we *didn't* plan to do this.
> Perhaps back then (ten years ago) we could have gotten away with the
> compatibility breakage, but now I doubt it.
I might have added that one; the text is:
Consider disallowing multiple queries in PQexec()
as an additional barrier to SQL injection attacks
and it is a "consider" item. Should it be moved to the Wire Protocol
Changes / v4 Protocol section or removed?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
