Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions
Date
Msg-id 1264.1171415429@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> It'll break most of the functions that we have in our production
> systems...  They're not security definer functions but it's routine for
> us to switch between different schemas to run a function on.

> What about pushing all the in-function references down to the
> specific objects referenced at plan creation time (err, I thought this
> was done?)?

Wouldn't that break exactly the cases you're worried about?  It would be
an enormous amount of work, too.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Writing triggers in C++
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions