Re: Where to stick function setuid
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Where to stick function setuid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0009171510420.576-100000@peter обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Where to stick function setuid (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Where to stick function setuid
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Where were we on this? Yes/No/Maybe? Peter Eisentraut writes: > Tom Lane writes: > > > > Btw., FunctionCallInvoke() would look to be the most prominent place to > > > hook in the "setuid" feature. For that purpose I'd make the macro an > > > inline function instead. > > > > Ugh. The performance cost would be excessive. > > In the path of a "normal" function call is only one extra `if (bool)' > statement. There are certainly more "excessive" performance problems than > that, no? > > > Instead, when fmgr is setting up to call a setuid function, have it > > insert an extra level of function handler that does the > > save/setup/restore of current UID. > > I don't quite understand. Do you mean like a PL function handler? But then > this thing wouldn't work for external PL's unless we either have a setuid > version of each or have nested handlers. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: