| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix unqualified catalog references in psql describe queries |
| Date: | 2026-06-10 02:12:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1236173.1781057568@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 09:08:50AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> Now I wonder if we shoud not "protect" the operators too. They could also
>> lead to wrong results (if not worst).
> Kind of true. Still we have been pretty lax about the operators as
> they also lead to less readable queries.
We disclaimed security against odd search_paths for these queries long ago,
precisely because wrapping every operator in PG_OPERATOR(pg_catalog.*)
would be far too tedious and destructive of readability --- not to
mention that there are some syntaxes such as IN that don't even offer
the option to do that.
I'm okay with schema-qualifying these table references, mainly because
that preserves consistency with historical style here. But let's not
go further than that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Henson Choi | 2026-06-10 02:42:43 | Re: LLVM JIT: any JIT-compiled query crashes (SIGILL) on a libLLVM 19 + ASAN build |
| Previous Message | Henson Choi | 2026-06-10 02:09:16 | LLVM JIT: any JIT-compiled query crashes (SIGILL) on a libLLVM 19 + ASAN build |