From: | "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Marko Tiikkaja" <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |
Date: | 2021-06-01 15:56:43 |
Message-ID: | 1c245ba8-c68f-48ac-94f2-f4a9a2baff70@www.fastmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 14:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 1. 6. 2021 v 13:13 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> napsal:
>> __I don't agree. If an extension provides functionality that is supposed to be used by all parts of the system, then I think the 'public' schema is a good choice.
>
> I disagree
>
> usual design of extensions (when schema is used) is
>
> create schema ...
> set schema ...
>
> create table
> create function
>
> It is hard to say if it is good or it is bad.
Yes, it's hard, because it's a matter of taste.
Some prefer convenience, others clarity/safety.
> Orafce using my own schema, and some things are in public (and some in pg_catalog), and people don't tell me, so it was a good choice.
I struggle to understand this last sentence.
So you orafce extension installs objects in both public and pg_catalog, right.
But what do you mean with "people don't tell me"?
And what "was a good choice"?
Thanks for explaining.
/Joel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Pyhalov | 2021-06-01 16:00:55 | Re: join pushdown and issue with foreign update |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-06-01 15:35:44 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |