Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
Date
Msg-id 200709111822.35061.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
List pgsql-hackers
Am Dienstag, 11. September 2007 15:53 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
> > I have a question about what does happen if search path is not defined
> > for SECURITY DEFINER function. My expectation is that SECURITY DEFINER
> > function should defined empty search patch in this case.
>
> Your expectation is incorrect.  We are not in the business of breaking
> every application in sight, which is what that would do.

Well, a SECURITY DEFINER function either sets its own search path, in which 
case a default search path would have no effect, or it doesn't set its own 
search path, in which case it's already broken (albeit in a different way).  
So setting a default search path can only be a net gain.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong
Next
From: Teodor Sigaev
Date:
Subject: Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong