On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Dave Page <dpage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 22:18 +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> >>> > I have no problem with him trying to protect his hard earned work. I >>> > just think he is trying to solve the wrong problem. >>> >>> It's a real problem faced by many businesses and solved by most >>> commercial DBMSs. Of course, it's basically impossible to solve in the >>> Open Source world, as there's nowhere to hide a key or obfuscation >>> algorithm. If akp geek is able to use EnterpriseDB builds of Postgres, >>> then he may want to look at PL/Secure, which will obfuscate his >>> pl/pgsql code: >>> >>> http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/pl_secure_standard_server.do >> >> That's interesting... does it just turn it into bytecode? > > No, it runs it through a few different obfuscation algorithms to make > it very difficult to decode without knowledge of them. > > -- > Dave Page > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise Postgres Company > Perhaps (I could be wrong here), there may be a way (even though I don't really support the obfuscation, vendor lockup etc... idea). 1)Use a commercial DB (as mentioned previously), they seem to have provided for this. 2)Use PostgreSQL and write all code into C functions and complied to a given PostgreSQL installation. Allan. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
