Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
Date: 2024-04-03 08:33:10
Message-ID: 0D0A98A8-CAB2-4F52-B10A-826C97C41799@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 3 Apr 2024, at 09:13, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2024-Apr-02, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>
>> That quotation comes from this Debian patch[2] maintained by Christoph
>> Berg. I’d like to formally propose integrating this patch into the
>> core. And not only because it’s overhead for package maintainers like
>> Christoph, but because a number of use cases have emerged since we
>> originally discussed something like this back in 2013[3]:
>
> I support the idea of there being a second location from where to load
> shared libraries

Agreed, the case made upthread that installing an extension breaks the app
signing seems like a compelling reason to do this.

The implementation of this need to make sure the directory is properly set up
however to avoid similar problems that CVE 2019-10211 showed.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Fan 2024-04-03 08:36:33 Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-04-03 08:17:05 Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation