Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema

You're absolutely right about the lack of interactivity. I'd still go with
your suggestion of using something along the lines of cascade/force, as
dropping the schema silently can potentially delete the user data.

Bests,
Sadeq

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 02:27 David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sunday, July 27, 2025, Sadeq Dousti <msdousti(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> (a) The patch affects DROP EXTENSION in that it drops the schema as well,
>> if it's owned by the extension. This needs to be mentioned in the
>> documentation. In addition, an extra confirmation (e.g., "This will drop
>> schema nnnn as well, do you wish to continue?") when dropping the
>> extension might be desired, as the extension schema could contain user
>> data (e.g., pg_cron keeps the jobs and their execution details).
>>
>
> SQL isn’t interactive in this sense. There isn’t a way to ask “are you
> sure?”. At best the server can refuse to do something unless additional
> options, like “force/cascade” are present in the command.
>
> David J.
>
>