| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Kuroda, Hayato" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "dimitri(at)citusdata(dot)com" <dimitri(at)citusdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prevent extension creation in temporary schemas |
| Date: | 2019-02-28 15:13:17 |
| Message-ID: | 7958.1551366797@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> writes:
>> test=> CREATE EXTENSION file_fdw WITH SCHEMA pg_temp_3;
>> ERROR: function file_fdw_handler() does not exist
> This behavior seems as not related to extensions infrastructure:
Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema
for function or operator names, unless the calling SQL command
explicitly writes "pg_temp.foo(...)" or equivalent. That's an
ancient security decision, which we're unlikely to undo. It
certainly puts a crimp in the usefulness of putting extensions into
pg_temp, but I don't think it totally destroys the usefulness.
You could still use an extension to package, say, the definitions
of a bunch of temp tables and views that you need to create often.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2019-02-28 15:13:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-28 15:09:05 | Re: Drop type "smgr"? |