Vlad Khorsun wrote:

>> Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>>
>>>> It may be when SYSDBA grant language usage to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I still not understand why we should have such privileges (for language usage).
>>>
>>>
>> You not see because you're thinking in a limited environment like
>> current UDFs, that one need to put binary files in an allowed directory.
>>
>
> And nobody get the reasons why it is not enough for Java
>
>
>> We're now doing a extensible plugin architecture, and we don't know how
>> and what plugins can execute.
>>
>
> GRANT EXECUTE is not enough ?
>
> Adriano, define please goals, problems and only after - possible solutions.
> Else we never understand each other

1) We are a database or FTP server?
2) We are defining a public plugin interface or something only the FB
project may use and can change in each version?
3) Should it be harder to use or easy?

Vlad, if official Java plugin allows only to execute classes that user
should invent a way to put in the server, it will certainly not be very
usable.

Possible good Java plugin would allow to upload
JAR/class/resources/sources, or write inline Java code that will be
compiled in the server.

What you're suggesting (a global permission to define external
procedures) doesn't make sense because:

1) If well configured, Java code is safe as PSQL
2) No matter how good configured, binary machine code is not safe - I
see no comments from you about "security by obscurity" that I told


Adriano