From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings |
Date: | 2007-09-11 17:06:47 |
Message-ID: | 13610.1189530407@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Well, a SECURITY DEFINER function either sets its own search path, in which
> case a default search path would have no effect, or it doesn't set its own
> search path, in which case it's already broken (albeit in a different way).
> So setting a default search path can only be a net gain.
It would break functions that actually want to use a caller-specified
search path, and protect themselves by explicitly schema-qualifying
every other reference than one to some caller-specified object. Which
admittedly is notationally a pain in the neck, but it's possible to do.
I do not think that we should foreclose potentially useful behavior
*and* make a major break in backward compatibility in order to make
a very small improvement in security.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-11 17:12:33 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong |
Previous Message | Sergey E. Koposov | 2007-09-11 17:06:16 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong |