Tom Lane wrote: > > How is this different from > > > 1. register language in pg_language without privileges > > 2. activate language by granting privileges > > Because you can't create a language without first creating the support > procedures, which ordinarily requires having the shared library > present.
We are only talking about well-known procedural languages. The issue of completely new languages added by the user is addressed by neither proposal. > Also, ISTM your proposal is to cause "CREATE LANGUAGE foo" on an > already-existing language to execute "GRANT USAGE ON LANGUAGE foo TO > PUBLIC" instead, rather than erroring out. That doesn't seem to pass > the least-surprise test at all. Clearly, there's going to be some surprise element. The surprise element proposed by you is that the command does something completely different than specified (which possibly introduces security holes, see other mail). My proposal is that the command does only a subset of what it would normally do, which amounts to some sort of implicit "OR REPLACE", which people are familiar with. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
