| From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Information/schema hiding... |
| Date: | 2004-04-12 20:05:55 |
| Message-ID: | CE6672EC-8CBC-11D8-BE05-000A95C705DC@chittenden.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>>> To prevent this, I changed the
>>> behavior of SET search_path so that it validates its input.
>
>> ... It would be possible to make interactive SET behave differently
>> from the non-interactive case,
>
> Wait a minute --- scratch what I said above; interactive "SET
> search_path" already does behave differently from noninteractive.
> So what did your patch change exactly?
I think (don't know all of the ways there are to SET search_path), the
interactive way to SET search_path. :) It changed assign_search_path
in catalog/namespace.c, iirc. I said in my original email that someone
could still do ALTER USER SET search_path and have that work without
checking.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-12 20:21:24 | Re: PostgreSQL configuration |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2004-04-12 20:05:06 | Re: 7.5 beta version |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-13 04:20:14 | Updated COPY CSV patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-04-12 17:44:02 | Re: aclitem accessor functions |