Re: fsutil ideas - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: fsutil ideas
Date
Msg-id 20060224070407.GY2068@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fsutil ideas  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: fsutil ideas
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:32:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > Do we actually need this functionality inside the 
> > DBMS in the first place?
> 
> I think that is the $64 question.  My immediate instinct is "no".
> See the knock-down-drag-out fights we had last summer about whether
> to expose any filesystem access in built-in standard functions at all.
> There will be what the Supreme Court would call "strict scrutiny"
> concerning the need for this, possible security risks, etc.

Isn't this something that could be accomplished entirely within a
function? I suppose it might have to be an untrusted language, but that
still seems cleaner than putting it in the backend. Plus, ISTM that
something like perl is more likely to have a cross-platform means of
accomplishing this.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: suggestion
Next
From: Michael Glaesemann
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL unit tests