Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5292E446E for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:22:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82098-01-3 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:22:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCA42E44C9 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:18:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.61]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:18:49 -0500 id 00056440.4762ACE9.000185D8 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:18:49 -0500 From: Bill Moran To: "Roberts, Jon" Cc: "'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org'" Subject: Re: viewing source code Message-Id: <20071214111849.b8788ce4.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A927621129EC@nrtexcus702.int.asurion.com> References: <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A927621129EC@nrtexcus702.int.asurion.com> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/216 X-Sequence-Number: 28032 In response to "Roberts, Jon" : > > > In an ideal world, if a user can't modify a function, he/she shouldn't > > be > > > able to see the source code. If the user can execute the function, then > > the > > > user should be able to see the signature of the function but not the > > body. > > > > I doubt that's going to happen. Mainly because I disagree completely > > with your ideal world description (any user who can execute a function > > should have the right to examine it to see what it actually does). > > That is like saying anyone that has rights to call a web service should be > able to see the source code for it. I think that's a good idea. If vendors were forced publish their code, we'd have less boneheaded security breaches. > There should be the ability to create > some level of abstraction when appropriate. I agree. If vendors want to have boneheaded security breaches, they should be allowed. > However, in the current configuration, all users with permission to log in > can see all source code. They don't have rights to execute the functions > but they can see the source code for them. Shouldn't I be able to revoke > both the ability to execute and the ability to see functions? Um ... why did you snip my second paragraph where I said exactly this? -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023