Re: security_definer_search_path GUC

From: "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Marko Tiikkaja" <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Date: 2021-06-01 15:56:43
Message-ID: 1c245ba8-c68f-48ac-94f2-f4a9a2baff70@www.fastmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 14:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 1. 6. 2021 v 13:13 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> napsal:
>> __I don't agree. If an extension provides functionality that is supposed to be used by all parts of the system, then I think the 'public' schema is a good choice.
>
> I disagree
>
> usual design of extensions (when schema is used) is
>
> create schema ...
> set schema ...
>
> create table
> create function
>
> It is hard to say if it is good or it is bad.

Yes, it's hard, because it's a matter of taste.
Some prefer convenience, others clarity/safety.

> Orafce using my own schema, and some things are in public (and some in pg_catalog), and people don't tell me, so it was a good choice.

I struggle to understand this last sentence.
So you orafce extension installs objects in both public and pg_catalog, right.
But what do you mean with "people don't tell me"?
And what "was a good choice"?

Thanks for explaining.

/Joel

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Pyhalov 2021-06-01 16:00:55 Re: join pushdown and issue with foreign update
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-06-01 15:35:44 Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side