From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: allow building trusted languages without the untrusted versions
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 14:20:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1306838.1653330002@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220523173805.GB939874@nathanxps13>
References: <20220520225619.GA876272@nathanxps13>
<571753.1653092411@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220523165403.GC938919@nathanxps13>
<1290329.1653326228@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220523173805.GB939874@nathanxps13>
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> That's a reasonable point. I'll go ahead an explore some options for
> something along those lines. A couple of questions immediately come to
> mind. For example, should this configuration option just cause these
> functions to ERROR, or should it compile them out?
Letting them be present but throw error is likely to be far less
painful than the other way, because then you don't need a separate
set of SQL-visible object definitions. You could, in fact, imagine
jacking up an existing database and driving a set of locked-down
binaries under it --- or vice versa. If there have to be different
versions of the extension SQL files for the two cases then everything
gets way hairier, both for developers and users.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, nathandbossart@gmail.com
Subject: Re: allow building trusted languages without the untrusted versions
In-Reply-To: <1306838.1653330002@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox