On fre, 2010-05-28 at 13:03 +0100, Sam Mason wrote: > That's not normally a problem. The conventional way would be to place > the interpreter in its own sandbox, similar to how Chrome has each tab > running in its own process. These processes are protected in a way > so that the code running inside them can't do any harm--e.g. a ptrace > jail[1]. This is quite a change from existing pl implementations, and > present a different set of performance/compatibility issues.
Surely a definition of a trusted language that invalidates the existing trusted languages is not going help resolve the issue. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
