Re: Converting contrib SQL functions to new style

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 02:03:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Could we hack things so that extension scripts are only allowed to
> >> reference objects created (a) by the system, (b) earlier in the
> >> same script, or (c) owned by one of the declared prerequisite
> >> extensions? Seems like that might provide a pretty bulletproof
> >> defense against trojan-horse objects, though I'm not sure how much
> >> of a pain it'd be to implement.

Good idea.

> > That doesn't seem like a crazy idea, but the previous idea of having
> > some magic syntax that means "the schema where extension FOO is" seems
> > like it might be easier to implement and more generally useful.
>
> I think that's definitely useful, but it's not a fix for the
> reference-capture problem unless you care to assume that the other
> extension's schema is free of trojan-horse objects.

I could see using that, perhaps in a non-SQL-language function. I agree it
solves different problems.