Re: proposal: schema variables

From: Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: schema variables
Date: 2017-11-02 15:35:07
Message-ID: 20171102153505.GP4496@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:05:54PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The variables can be modified by SQL command SET (this is taken from
> > standard, and it natural)
> >
> > SET varname = expression;
>
> Overloading SET to handle both variables and GUCs seems likely to
> create problems, possibly including security problems. For example,
> maybe a security-definer function could leave behind variables to
> trick the calling code into failing to set GUCs that it intended to
> set. Or maybe creating a variable at the wrong time will just break
> things randomly.

That's already true of GUCs, since there are no access controls on
set_config()/current_setting().

Presumably "schema variables" would really just be GUC-like and not at
all like lexically scoped variables. And also subject to access
controls, thus an overall improvement on set_config()/current_setting().

With access controls, GUCs could become schema variables, and settings
from postgresql.conf could move into the database itself (which I think
would be nice).

Nico
--

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2017-11-02 15:40:36 Re: proposal: schema variables
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2017-11-02 15:33:31 Re: Client Connection redirection support for PostgreSQL