Re: plpgsql by default

On 2006-04-11, Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>> On 2006-04-11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I don't feel a need to offer specific examples as requested by Andrew.
>> 
>> Why not? You're basing your entire argument on a false premise (that
>> pl/pgsql is more powerful than SQL); I can provide specific examples of
>> why this is not the case, or refute any that you care to provide. 
>
> You can write trigger functions in plpgsql.

You can write rules without plpgsql.

While rules and triggers are not equivalent, I think you'll be hard-pressed
to come up with an example where a malicious intruder, with sufficient
access to the system to create pl/pgsql functions if pl/pgsql is loaded,
can carry out a useful attack using triggers that would not be possible
without them.

Let's try a simple example; changing the value of a column in future
inserts into a table. Doing it without a trigger turns out to be simple;
as a demonstration, this method allows an SQL function to be invoked:

create function foox(foo) returns integer language sql as $$ update foo set value='bogus' where id=$1.id; select 1;
$$;

create rule foo_rule as on insert to foo do insert into bar values (foox(NEW));

insert into foo values (2,'bar');
INSERT 0 1

select * from foo;id | value 
----+------- 1 | foo 2 | bogus
(2 rows)

So that's triggers without pl/pgsql. Anyone else want to try a challenge?

-- 
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services