| From: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| Date: | 2009-11-23 15:05:14 |
| Message-ID: | bddc86150911230705t525fa64sfd82265e475f0867@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
2009/11/23 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > As for having plpgsql installed by default, are there any security
> > implications?
>
> Well, that's pretty much exactly the question --- are there? It would
> certainly make it easier for someone to exploit any other security
> weakness they might find. I believe plain SQL plus SQL functions is
> Turing-complete, but that doesn't mean it's easy or fast to write loops
> etc in it.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I personally find it more important to gracefully add plpgsql if it doesn't
already exist than to rely on it already being there. In a way it wouldn't
solve this problem as someone could have still removed it. Other procedural
languages could benefit from some sort of check too.
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-11-23 15:24:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-23 14:38:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-23 15:23:54 | Re: Partitioning option for COPY |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-23 14:59:18 | Re: Partitioning option for COPY |