| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] New predefined role pg_manage_extensions |
| Date: | 2025-03-07 16:23:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1021859.1741364631@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> writes:
> The reason why I walked back my comment was that cloud providers can
> simply choose which extensions they actually add to the image. If an
> extension is marked as not trusted by the author, then with this role
> they can still choose to add it without having to make changes to the
> control file if they think it's "secure enough".
If they think it's "secure enough", they can mark it trusted in their
images. Why do we need anything beyond that?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-03-07 16:32:28 | Re: strange valgrind reports about wrapper_handler on 64-bit arm |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2025-03-07 16:23:37 | Re: TOAST versus toast |