| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings |
| Date: | 2007-09-11 16:22:34 |
| Message-ID: | 200709111822.35061.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Dienstag, 11. September 2007 15:53 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> > I have a question about what does happen if search path is not defined
> > for SECURITY DEFINER function. My expectation is that SECURITY DEFINER
> > function should defined empty search patch in this case.
>
> Your expectation is incorrect. We are not in the business of breaking
> every application in sight, which is what that would do.
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.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-09-11 16:38:53 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-11 16:20:24 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong |