Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:11:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
This has been proposed before, and rejected before. Have you got
any new arguments?
The longer it's been since the last vuln in PL/PgSQL, the harder it is
to argue for having it not be there by default.
You are attacking a straw man, which is that the only argument against
having PL/PgSQL installed is the risk of security holes in it.
I am having trouble locating the previous thread - can someone please
point me at it?
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
