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

From: "Jelte Fennema-Nio" <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Julien Rouhaud" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Artem Gavrilov" <artem(dot)gavrilov(at)percona(dot)com>, "Tomas Vondra" <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema
Date: 2026-02-10 23:19:39
Message-ID: DGBO0D6A5NLP.1D1EIO0UO4L3H@jeltef.nl
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 16:52, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> OK. Perhaps that needs some associated tests?

Added now in v8, as well as a bunch of other tests. Including a test for
trusted extensions, and a fix so that for trusted extensions the owned
schema is owned by the bootstrap superuser. Changes made since v7 can be
found in nocfbot.changes.diff.

> To be honest, I'm kind of leaning at this point toward saying we
> shouldn't impose any special restrictions here. If the DROP doesn't
> cascade, then the worst thing that can happen is that you make it hard
> for yourself to drop your own extension cleanly. I think letting the
> superuser and the schema owner do things and other people not is too
> weird -- it basically boils down to ignoring GRANT sometimes, and I
> think users will find it confusing.

I agree. I kept it like that.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v8-0001-Add-support-for-extensions-with-an-owned-schema.patch text/x-patch 51.6 KB
nocfbot.changes.diff text/x-patch 14.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2026-02-10 23:24:31 Re: access numeric data in module
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-02-10 23:08:38 Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?