Re: plpython implementation

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpython implementation
Date: 2013-06-30 12:05:41
Message-ID: 20130630120541.GA2950@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 01:49:53PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> I'm reading through plperl and plpython implementations and I don't
> understand the way they work.
>
> Comments for plperl say that there are two interpreters (trusted and
> untrusted) for each user session, and they are stored in a hash.

The point is that python has no version for untrusted users, since it's
been accepted that there's no way to build a python sandbox for
untrusted code. There was actually a small competition to make one but
it failed, since then they don't bother.

Perl does provide a sandbox, hence you can have two interpreters in a
single backend.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-06-30 12:13:13 Re: plpython implementation
Previous Message Szymon Guz 2013-06-30 11:49:53 plpython implementation