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.
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19026