Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> So... can we get back to coming up with a reasonable
> definition, and 

Guess I'm wondering if we could steal such a definition from one of the
languages we allow as trusted already..  Just a thought.  I certainly
think we should make sure that we document how untrusted languages are
handled from the PG point of view (eg: can't change ownership).

> if somebody wants to write some regression tests, all
> the better?

I certainly am fine with that to the extent that they want to work on
that instead of hacking PG..  Guess I just don't think it should be a
priority for us to come up with a signifigant regression suite for
pieces that are supposedly being externally managed.

	Thanks,

		Stephen