On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 08:53 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> For standalone functions, users can easily adjust the search_path
> settings as needed. However, managing this becomes challenging for
> functions created via extensions. Extensions are relocatable, making
> it difficult to determine and apply search_path settings in advance
> within the extension_name--*.sql file when defining functions or
> procedures.
A special search_path variable "$extension_schema" would be a better
solution to this problem. We need something like that anyway, in case
the extension is relocated, so that we don't have to dig through the
catalog and update all the settings.
> Introducing a new control flag option allows users to set
> implicit search_path settings for functions created by the extension,
> if needed. The main aim here is to enhance security for functions
> created by extensions by setting search_path at the function level.
> This ensures precise control over how objects are accessed within
> each
> function, making behavior more predictable and minimizing security
> risks,
That leaves me wondering whether it's being addressed at the right
level.
For instance, did you consider just having a GUC to control the default
search_path for a function? That may be too magical, but if so, why
would an extension-only setting be better?
> especially for SECURITY DEFINER functions associated with
> extensions created by superusers.
I'm not sure that it's specific to SECURITY DEFINER functions.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
