AW: AW: AW: Why is materialized view creation a "security-restricted operation"?

Yes I read your follow-up post. I understood the table is "global". My remaining question simply was:

Your function temp_table (as ill-named as it might be),

Can it run concurrently and will the contents be isolated? I suppose so.

Regards,
Franz-Josef Färber

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Oktober 2026 16:30
An: Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK) <Franz-Josef(dot)Faerber(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de>; Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Haupt, Matthias (StMUK) <Matthias(dot)Haupt(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de>
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Why is materialized view creation a "security-restricted operation"?

On 10/14/26 6:16 AM, Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK) wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. Could work.
>
> * Then we have a table at global scope.
> * However it won't be seen by other transactions, and is deleted in the same transaction. Sounds safe at first glance?
> * Well, what about two transactions running concurrently, both executing public.temp_table()? Is safe, too, as far as I understand about transactions? Each transaction has its own table, even though on global scope?

As I indicated in a follow on post, my naming the function temp_table() was a mistake. This actually creates a 'permanent' table that survives a run until dropped on next run. Like I said this was a quick and dirty example. Without more information on what your process flow and security expectations this is about as in depth as I can get.

>
> Quite a bunch of things to consider, but sounds safe enough for me. Thank you.
>
>
> Regards,
> Franz-Josef Färber
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2026 18:23
> An: Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK) <Franz-Josef(dot)Faerber(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de>;
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc: Haupt, Matthias (StMUK) <Matthias(dot)Haupt(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de>
> Betreff: Re: AW: Why is materialized view creation a "security-restricted operation"?
>
> On 10/13/26 4:36 AM, Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK) wrote:
>>>> [rant about PostgreSQL security restrictions]
>> No no no, not about security restrictions. The rant is about lacking orthogonality. About often NOT being able to combine language features. Doesn't anybody share that view? We COULD do better, I think.
>
> Quick and dirty example.
>
> cat test.csv
> 1,dog,t
> 2,cat,f
> 3,fish,t
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.temp_table()
> RETURNS TABLE(id integer, type character varying, active boolean)
> LANGUAGE plpgsql
> AS $function$
> BEGIN
> DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test_csv;
> CREATE TABLE test_csv(id integer, type varchar, active boolean);
> COPY test_csv FROM '/var/lib/postgresql/18/main/test.csv' WITH CSV;
> RETURN QUERY EXECUTE
> 'SELECT id, type, active FROM test_csv'; END; $function$
>
>
> select * from temp_table();
> id | type | active
> ----+------+--------
> 1 | dog | t
> 2 | cat | f
> 3 | fish | t
>
>
>>
>>> If the security restrictions of materialized views prevent you from using them, why don't you use a normal table instead, TRUNCATE it and INSERT into it?
>> The MAT VIEW is used from "outside". From other views, or from a client that connects to the database.
>>
>> * I can replace it with a view; I didn't do that for performance reasons.
>> * I can replace it with a persistent table, a stored procedure, and custom caching logic. That'll work. But this is what a MAT VIEW is for, I thought.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Franz-Josef Färber
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2026 13:06
>> An: Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK)
>> <Franz-Josef(dot)Faerber(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de>;
>> Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>;
>> pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Cc: Haupt, Matthias (StMUK) <Matthias(dot)Haupt(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de>
>> Betreff: Re: Why is materialized view creation a "security-restricted operation"?
>>
>> On Mon, 2026-10-12 at 14:59 +0000, Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK) wrote:
>>
>>> [rant about PostgreSQL security restrictions]
>>>
>>> Ok, I think some people get the point that I claim SQL / Postgres is
>>> lacking modularity / orthogonality in the way as I tried to define above.
>>
>> I don't. Just because the features you are stacking don't work the way you'd like them to, it's not a shortcoming of orthogonality or modularity.
>>
>>> So let me explain. And perhaps somebody can give good advice.
>>>
>>> * I am running Postgres in a container.
>>> * I am using https://github.com/pramsey/pgsql-http to query REST services using credentials.
>>> * I took it as good advice to pass environment variables into the container, and to pass
>>> passwords as single files, in mounted container directory /run/secrets/ .
>>> * Inside postgres I am trying to load that data, using memoization pattern. For example using
>>> CREATE TEMP TABLE x ...; COPY x ... FROM PROGRAM 'cat /run/secrets/mypassword'.
>>> This part is encapsulated as a function.
>>>
>>> * Now there was one point where I was using a MATERIALIZED VIEW accessing that function.
>>> And well, that failed.
>>>
>>> What I COULD do is replace COPY x ... FROM PROGRAM with a file_fdw
>>> FOREIGN TABLE, but this way it isn't parametrizable. I would have to
>>> create as many foreign tables as I have passwords / environment variables, I think.
>>
>> If the security restrictions of materialized views prevent you from using them, why don't you use a normal table instead, TRUNCATE it and INSERT into it?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Laurenz Albe
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com