| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>, "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: | 2020-09-24 03:15:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_bo2zZm6-9Hmn-XA0NtYdSMZ1v2A0fAmfX_9tgZZGt1Ng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tony Shelver | 2020-09-24 05:12:48 | Re: PostgreSQL on Windows' state |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-24 02:58:26 | Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions |