Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?

Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> writes:
> Agreed. As long as a trusted language can do things outside the
> database only by going through a database and calling some function to
> which the user has rights, in an untrusted language, that seems decent
> to me. A user with permissions to launch_missiles() would have a
> function in an untrusted language to do it, but there's no reason an
> untrusted language shouldn't be able to say "SELECT

s/untrusted/trusted/ here, right?

> launch_missiles()".

To me, as long as they go back into the database via SPI, anything they
can get to from there is OK.  What I meant to highlight upthread is that
we don't want trusted functions being able to access other functions
"directly" without going through SQL.  As an example, a PL that has FFI
capability sufficient to allow direct access to heap_insert() would
have to be considered untrusted.
        regards, tom lane