Re: security_definer_search_path GUC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joel Jacobson
Subject Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Date
Msg-id 1c245ba8-c68f-48ac-94f2-f4a9a2baff70@www.fastmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: security_definer_search_path GUC  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 14:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
út 1. 6. 2021 v 13:13 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:
I don't agree. If an extension provides functionality that is supposed to be used by all parts of the system, then I think the 'public' schema is a good choice.

I disagree

usual design of extensions (when schema is used) is

create schema ...
set schema ...

create table
create function

It is hard to say if it is good or it is bad.

Yes, it's hard, because it's a matter of taste.
Some prefer convenience, others clarity/safety.

Orafce using my own schema, and some things are in public (and some in pg_catalog), and people don't tell me, so it was a good choice.

I struggle to understand this last sentence.
So you orafce extension installs objects in both public and pg_catalog, right.
But what do you mean with "people don't tell me"?
And what "was a good choice"?

Thanks for explaining.

/Joel

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Next
From: Alexander Pyhalov
Date:
Subject: Re: join pushdown and issue with foreign update