Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16679.936136370@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 (Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes: >> I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!) > The QueryLimit has been reintroduced because it can be used to set a global > default limit for all queries instead of hacking manually some hundred > queries. I admit that the LIMIT...OFFSET is a cleaner way to do it, but > having the possibility to specify a global default doesn't hurt. Yes it does: it creates the possibility of breaking (returning incomplete answers to) queries inside rules, triggers, procedures, etc. In the worst case it could be used by an unprivileged user to subvert security checks built into a database by means of rules. I think this "feature" is far too dangerous to put into the general distribution. What would be reasonably safe is a limit that applies *only* to data being returned to the interactive user, but that would be a different mechanism than the LIMIT clause; I'm not sure where it would need to be implemented. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: