Re: Potential security risk associated with function call
| От | Jet |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Potential security risk associated with function call |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | tencent_67A43A0A37B0AB350E39C64A@qq.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Potential security risk associated with function call (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Potential security risk associated with function call
Re: Potential security risk associated with function call |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Correct. This is expected behaviour: the "internal" and "c" languages > are not 'trusted' languages, and therefore only superusers can create > functions using these languages. Yes, you're right, only superusers can create "in.ternal" and "c" languages > It is the explicit responsibility of > the superuser to make sure the functions they create using untrusted > languages are correct and execute safely when called by PostgreSQL. But the question is how can a superuser know the "internal" and "c" functions implementation details? He will not know whether the code has !PG_ARGISNULL(...), and create a harmful function accidentally... Jet Halo Tech
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: