On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 11:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > >> I know you will say that PL/sh is not any more dangerous than the
> > >> untrusted versions of plperl and pltcl, but there is a difference.
> > >> PL/sh has *no reason to exist* other than to implement
> > >> non-transaction-safe outside-the-database behavior; there is no safe
> > >> behavior for which it is the preferred tool.
> >
> > > Well, sending an email is something only PL/sh can do.
> >
> > Nonsense --- a quick system() call in plperlu or pltclu can do it
> > just as well, or even launch a shell script if you insist on coding
> > your mistakes in sh...
>
> Well, if they are going to call system() from perl, why don't we just
> give them PL/sh and they can do it directly.
>
Humm, actually, I think you can send an email from straight Tcl (and
probably Perl), without the system call (unless of course you wanted to
interface with a specific mail agent). Look at pgmail for an example of
this (pgmail.sf.net).
--brett
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>