James William Pye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 06:36:19PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm not sure it's an issue now that we have pg_pltemplate, but in older
versions it's possible to create a language without setting a validator.
This would make the validator an
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 01:08:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
That design is broken on its face, as the system does not guarantee to
call the validator.
Hrm. Other than language creations that do not specify a validator, at what
times will Postgres not call the validator upon function creation?
--
James William Pye wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 01:08:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
That design is broken on its face, as the system does not guarantee to
call the validator.
Hrm. Other than language creations that do not specify a validator, at
what
times will Postgres not call the
James William Pye schrieb:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 01:21:34PM -0700, I wrote:
From what I have seen of zope's restricted python, it does, or can, force its
restrictions by checking bytecode. I imagine a simple PL sitting on top of the
untrusted varient that merely implements a custom validator
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:36:01PM +0100, Michael Paesold wrote:
SET check_function_bodies = off;
Hrm, thanks for pointing that out. However, this, thankfully, does not appear
to inhibit the validator at all. Rather, the PL's validator is left with the job
to respect it if need be:
jwp=# select
James Robinson schrieb:
I see neilc has hacked on it very recently to reduce memory leaks. I
take that as both good and bad signs.
We're a [ small ] python shop, and would be most interested in being
able to simplify our life through doing some things in plpython instead
of pl/pgsql
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2006-02-25 kell 10:09, kirjutas Tino Wildenhain:
James Robinson schrieb:
I see neilc has hacked on it very recently to reduce memory leaks. I
take that as both good and bad signs.
We're a [ small ] python shop, and would be most interested in being
able to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
And with even more love the restricted python from zope could
be ported so there could be a pl/python again :-)
Ok, just haluzinating ;)
Not necessarily. ;)
From what I have seen of zope's restricted python, it does, or can,
James William Pye wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
And with even more love the restricted python from zope could
be ported so there could be a pl/python again :-)
Ok, just haluzinating ;)
Not necessarily. ;)
From what I have seen of zope's
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 06:36:19PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm not sure it's an issue now that we have pg_pltemplate, but in older
versions it's possible to create a language without setting a validator.
This would make the validator an unsuitable place for checking the
restrictions.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 01:21:34PM -0700, I wrote:
From what I have seen of zope's restricted python, it does, or can, force its
restrictions by checking bytecode. I imagine a simple PL sitting on top of the
untrusted varient that merely implements a custom validator that checks the
bytecode
I'm interested in poking though and taking a shot at getting my feet
wet with pl/python. I see the file is copyright Andrew Bosma -- is he
still around perhance? Is anyone currently the 'owner' ?
James Robinson
Socialserve.com
---(end of
James Robinson wrote:
I'm interested in poking though and taking a shot at getting my feet
wet with pl/python. I see the file is copyright Andrew Bosma -- is he
still around perhance? Is anyone currently the 'owner' ?
To my knowledge there is no current maintainer of plPython and it
definitely
I see neilc has hacked on it very recently to reduce memory leaks. I
take that as both good and bad signs.
We're a [ small ] python shop, and would be most interested in being
able to simplify our life through doing some things in plpython
instead of pl/pgsql where appropriate. Keeping our
14 matches
Mail list logo
