Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings

From: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
Date: 2007-09-11 14:57:01
Message-ID: 46E6ACBD.4030707@sun.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> I have a question about what does happen if search path is not defined
>> for SECURITY DEFINER function. My expectation is that SECURITY DEFINER
>> function should defined empty search patch in this case.
>
> Your expectation is incorrect. We are not in the business of breaking
> every application in sight, which is what that would do.

Oh. I see. In this point of view I suggest to add some warning about
potential security issue if SECURITY DEFINER function will create
without preset search_path. I'm aware that a lot of developer forget to
modify their application.

Zdenek

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2007-09-11 15:13:15 Re: pgcrypto related backend crash on solaris 10/x86_64
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-09-11 14:49:41 Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong