Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
Date: 2007-09-11 13:53:24
Message-ID: 27428.1189518804@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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. Nor do I think
it's a good plan to try to be smarter than the programmer.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-09-11 13:58:14 Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-09-11 13:46:42 Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong