From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pasi Oja-Nisula <pon(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Stored procedure code no longer stored in v14 and v15, changed behaviour |
Date: | 2022-12-02 16:05:43 |
Message-ID: | 7EB360C7-7AA9-4F16-9E0D-2942764AE6A9@thebuild.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Dec 2, 2022, at 08:02, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Pasi Oja-Nisula <pon(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>> I would be perfectly satisfied, if the sql that produced the procedure
>> would be stored "as is" read-only copy when it was compiled.
> If you want an audit comparison point, I'd suggest capturing
> the result of pg_get_functiondef or one of its sibling functions
> just after creating your function. "pg_dump -s" is another
> pretty credible mechanism for capturing schema details.
Agreeing with Tom, I find the argument that this is important for auditing unpersuasive. Storing the original text but allowing the version that is actually executed to be different is a step away from anything like good auditing practice.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan Lemig | 2022-12-02 20:51:50 | Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-02 16:02:18 | Re: Stored procedure code no longer stored in v14 and v15, changed behaviour |