| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dblink connection security |
| Date: | 2007-07-09 04:35:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4691BB16.80604@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
>> Sure it matters. A function written in a trusted language is known to be
>> safe, a priori. A function written in an untrusted language has no such
>> guarantees, and therefore has to be assumed unsafe unless carefully proved
>> otherwise.
>
> I see.. So all the functions in untrusted languages that come with PG
> initially should be checked over by every sysadmin when installing PG
> every time... And the same for PostGIS, and all of the PL's that use
> untrusted languages?
There are none installed by default -- that's the point.
> On my pretty modest install that's 2,206 functions. For some reason I
> see something of a difference between 'generate_series' and 'dblink' in
> terms of security and which one I'm comfortable having enabled by
> default and which one I'm not.
generate_series is a built in function. We aren't discussing those.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-07-09 04:45:19 | Re: dblink connection security |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-07-09 04:30:37 | Re: dblink connection security |