| From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: search_path wildcard? |
| Date: | 2024-05-22 19:12:50 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaCNkHcqJ-72qVPFuFGYt-_OArYSr6YRHPV1mtVQ1cdOpQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 1:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > That would be a helpful feature for administrators, when there are
> multiple
> > schemas in multiple databases, on multiple servers: superusers get ALTER
> > ROLE foo SET SEARCH_PATH = '*'; and they're done with it.
>
> ... and they're pwned within five minutes by any user with the wits
> to create a trojan-horse function or operator. Generally speaking,
> you want admins to run with a minimal search path not a maximal one.
>
Missing tables when running "\t" is a bigger hassle.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2024-05-22 19:34:39 | Re: search_path wildcard? |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-05-22 18:14:10 | Re: Missed compiler optimization issue in function select_rtable_names_for_explain |