Thread: function source
Is there a way to hide/encrypt the source for functions I might write in any of the procedural languages?
Doing \df+ <func> shows all of it.
I think that we have some functions that are defined in C. I'd have to check the repository to get the source. -Mark On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 10:47 -0500, Wright, George wrote: > Is there a way to hide/encrypt the source for functions I might write > in any of the procedural languages? > > > > Doing \df+ <func> shows all of it. > >
So does that mean there is no way to hide the source for procedural language functions in postgresql? -----Original Message----- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:mailing_lists@pandapocket.com] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:34 PM To: Wright, George Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [NOVICE] function source I think that we have some functions that are defined in C. I'd have to check the repository to get the source. -Mark On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 10:47 -0500, Wright, George wrote: > Is there a way to hide/encrypt the source for functions I might write > in any of the procedural languages? > > > > Doing \df+ <func> shows all of it. > >
On 12/07/2008, Wright, George <George.Wright@infimatic.com> wrote: > So does that mean there is no way to hide the source for procedural > language functions in postgresql? Let's say it's not easy to just "read" the definition ... one can go and use a disassembler to see what your procedure does if one feels the urge (and is good with assembler). The question is also: "whom do you want to stop from seeing them?" -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
For intel. Prop. Reasons, I don't want the source for the functions to be visible. The functions I've written are plpgsql and if I do \df+ <function> it displays the fully readable entire source. -----Original Message----- From: Andrej Ricnik-Bay [mailto:andrej.groups@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:57 PM To: Wright, George Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [NOVICE] function source On 12/07/2008, Wright, George <George.Wright@infimatic.com> wrote: > So does that mean there is no way to hide the source for procedural > language functions in postgresql? Let's say it's not easy to just "read" the definition ... one can go and use a disassembler to see what your procedure does if one feels the urge (and is good with assembler). The question is also: "whom do you want to stop from seeing them?" -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
On 12/07/2008, Wright, George <George.Wright@infimatic.com> wrote: >> Let's say it's not easy to just "read" the definition ... one can go >> and use a disassembler to see what your procedure does if one >> feels the urge (and is good with assembler). The question is also: >> "whom do you want to stop from seeing them?" > For intel. Prop. Reasons, I don't want the source for the functions to > be visible. The functions I've written are plpgsql and if I do \df+ > <function> it displays the fully readable entire source. Still didn't fully get who you're trying to hide stuff from, but have a look at those two (not that old) threads which you may find enlightening .... http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-12/msg00209.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2008-01/msg00111.php Oh, and please take the time to familiarise yourself with the quoting style on the postgres mailing-lists. Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm