On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:42, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in plc_safe_ok.pl
>>>> +use vars qw($PLContainer $SafeClass @EvalInSafe @ShareIntoSafe);
>>>> ...the *_init gucs to be able to stick things into
>>>> @ShareIntoSafe and friends?
>
> I'm not sure it's fine with me.
>
> I'm a bit inclined to commit the piece of this patch that concerns the
> warnings pragma,
I think a sizable portion of the patch can be dropped if you do the
above. Namely the whole double init protection that got added in the
last round.
> and leave the rest for the next release, unless you can
> convince me real fast that we're not opening a back door here. If we're
> going to allow DBAs to add things to the Safe container, it's going to be up
> front or not at all, as far as I'm concerned.
I think backdoor is a bit extreme. Yes it could allow people who
can set the plperl.*_init functions to muck with the safe. As an
admin I could also do that by setting plperl.on_init and overloading
subs in the Safe namespace or switching out Safe.pm.
Anyway reasons I can come up for it are:
-its general so we can add other modules/pragmas easily in the future
-helps with the plperl/plperlu all or nothing situation
-starts to flesh out how an actual exposed (read documented) interface
should look for 9.1
... I know Tim mentioned David as having some use cases (cc'ed)
So my $0.2 is I don't have any strong feelings for/against it. I
think if we could expose *something* (even if you can only get to it
in a C contrib module) that would be great. But I realize it might be
impractical at this stage in the game.
*shrug*
