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

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(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: 2007-09-01 17:48:55
Message-ID: 87ps12jmyg.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> I thought about ways to include GUC settings directly into CREATE
> FUNCTION, but it seemed pretty ugly and inconsistent with the
> existing syntax. So I'm thinking of supporting only the above
> syntaxes, meaning it'll take at least two commands to create a secure
> SECURITY DEFINER function.

I think security definer functions should automatically inherit their
search_path. The whole "secure by default" thing.

It might be best to have a guc variable which controls the variables which are
automatically saved. regexp_flavour and maybe a handful of others could be in
it by default. But that might depend on how expensive it is at run-time. I
wouldn't want trivial SQL functions to no longer be inline-able because one
might one day use a regexp for example.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-09-01 17:55:06 Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2007-09-01 17:36:41 Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings