| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Causer <chy(dot)causer(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump's restore gives "operator does not exist: public.iprange = public.iprange" but copy paste works |
| Date: | 2021-07-08 20:24:28 |
| Message-ID: | 2041705.1625775868@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'll admit these have been infrequent since resolving CVE 2018-1058, but I
> still disagree with the decision to not give the DBA an option on whether
> to leave public in their search_path during a pg_dump and pg_restore.
Yeah, I was never for that decision either. Anybody who's sufficiently
hot about it could try submitting a patch and see what happens.
I'm not quite sure how the option should work, but maybe call it
--use-unsafe-path and define it as adopting the same search_path
setting seen at dump time? Or maybe better to provide a restore-time
option saying "use this search_path"? It needs some thought, not
just quick-n-dirty code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-07-08 20:29:05 | Re: pg_dump's restore gives "operator does not exist: public.iprange = public.iprange" but copy paste works |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-07-08 20:24:13 | Re: pg_dump's restore gives "operator does not exist: public.iprange = public.iprange" but copy paste works |