Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 09:08:50AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> Now I wonder if we shoud not "protect" the operators too. They could also
>> lead to wrong results (if not worst).
> Kind of true. Still we have been pretty lax about the operators as
> they also lead to less readable queries.
We disclaimed security against odd search_paths for these queries long ago,
precisely because wrapping every operator in PG_OPERATOR(pg_catalog.*)
would be far too tedious and destructive of readability --- not to
mention that there are some syntaxes such as IN that don't even offer
the option to do that.
I'm okay with schema-qualifying these table references, mainly because
that preserves consistency with historical style here. But let's not
go further than that.
regards, tom lane
