3 ms·
>The sandboxing part is silly since no one in their right mind is going to expose their database to untrusted users in the first place. That's circular logic.
by brazzy 3y ago
>The sandboxing part is silly since no one in their right mind is going to expose their database to untrusted users in the first place.
That's circular logic. You would not do it when it's unsafe. But when it is, it could open up entirely new use cases. Most obviously, infrastructure-as-a-service offerings.
- semiquaver 3y agoIt’s only circular when your conception of “safety” has a single dimension. The sort of execution sandboxing provided by WASM runtimes isn’t even close to the primary challenge with allowing untrusted users to run code inside a database. In the general case using WASM as an object format does nothing to actually enable this use case beyond what exists. It doesn’t really matter since this “untrusted user functions in the db” scenario is incredibly niche. The vast majority of database usage involves data access patterns entirely controlled by the developers of the system. Stored procedures in a variety of languages have long been available to such developers _and are generally considered an anti-pattern_.