DROP VARIABLE super_secret;
CREATE VARIABLE super_secret ...;
But you don't do it in functions - these variables are persistent - you
don't create it or drop inside functions. The content is secure, so you
don't need to hide this variable against other.
ISTM that you are still missing my point.
I understood that you want a static analysis tool to re-assure you about
how your session variables are manipulated. I do not see how such a tool
can give any assurance without checking that the variable meta-data are
not changed by some malicious code inserted in a function.
I'm not sure that I understand these sentences.
so I don't prefer any design that increase a area where plpgsql_check
should not work.
My assumption is that plpgsql_check can be improved. For instance, I
assume that if "secure session variables" are added, then it will be
enhanced to do some checking about these and take them into account. If
"simple session variables" are added, I assume that it would also be
updated accordingly.
I wrote my notes there.
Great! I restructured a little bit and tried to improve the English. I
also added questions when some statement that I think are too optimistic,
or are unclear to me.
we have just different perspectives
I'm trying to have sentences that are both clear and true. If I think that
a sentence is imprecise because it is missing a key hypothesis, then I try
to improve it, whether it is mine or someone else.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
