Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:39 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Trevor Talbot <quension@gmail.com>,
	"Roberts, Jon" <Jon.Roberts@asurion.com>,
	Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>,
	"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>,
	Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: viewing source code
Message-ID: <20071220200739.GC11586@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: 
 <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762112A33@nrtexcus702.int.asurion.com>
	<476A9ADF.5030101@commandprompt.com>
	<90bce5730712201047m4dd0fe05k6b1fccc57897326f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20071220114011.64a650d7@commandprompt.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20071220114011.64a650d7@commandprompt.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

Joshua D. Drake escribió:

> I don't know that it needs to be that extensive. I noted elsewhere in
> the thread the idea of a plpgsql_s. I think that is an interesting
> idea. I just don't think it needs to be incorporated into
> postgresql-core. 

I don't think that makes any kind of sense.  Hiding prosrc should happen
on a entirely different level from the language on which the function is
written.  It's a completely orthogonal decision.  Besides, you probably
don't want prosrc to be encrypted -- just not accesible to everyone, and
it doesn't make sense to have a different _language_ to do that.

Also, having an encrypted source code means there must be a decryption
key somewhere, which is a pain on itself.  And if you expose the crypted
prosrc, you are exposing to brute force attacks (to which you are not if
prosrc is hidden).

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.