Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions
Date: 2020-09-26 10:06:34
Message-ID: CAOBaU_ajU-4S6F-ROOuE70QG=bn+gV8Z--_0F=2kD4cMacXPbQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:51 PM Daniel Westermann (DWE)
<daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:28:45PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> >> > I was playing a bit with trusted extensions and wondered if there is
> >> > a reason that the "trusted" flag is not exposed in pg_available_extensions.
> >> > I believe that information would be quite useful so one can easily
> >> > identify extensions that can be installed as "normal" user.
> >>
> >> Adding the trusted flag makes sense for visibility. There is a bit
> >> more that we could consider though? For example, what about
> >> "relocatable" and "requires"?
>
> >+1, and also the schema (for non relocatable extensions).

So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
fields so all the required infrastructure was already there. I just
added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
patch.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-pg_available_extensions_fields.diff application/octet-stream 3.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paul Förster 2020-09-26 10:58:51 Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE
Previous Message Paul Förster 2020-09-26 09:42:25 Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE