Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions
Date: 2022-06-14 01:41:17
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzn=pagMN67AjwhwCx-SKeCTfuQyER9Jby73trXtogZcvw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:51 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> By "relatively common" I think we're talking "nigh universal". Afaics
> there are no warnings in the docs about worrying about search_path on
> IMMUTABLE functions. There is for SECURITY DEFINER but I have to admit
> I wasn't aware myself of all the gotchas described there.

I didn't realize that it was that bad. Even if it's only 10% as bad as
you say, it would still be very valuable to do something about it
(ideally with an approach that is non-invasive).

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-06-14 01:55:12 Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-06-14 01:34:56 Re: 2022-06-16 release announcement draft