On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>> Overloading SET to handle both variables and GUCs seems likely to
>> create problems, possibly including security problems. For example,
>> maybe a security-definer function could leave behind variables to
>> trick the calling code into failing to set GUCs that it intended to
>> set. Or maybe creating a variable at the wrong time will just break
>> things randomly.
>
> That's already true of GUCs, since there are no access controls on
> set_config()/current_setting().
No, it isn't. Right now, SET always refers to a GUC, never a
variable, so there's no possibility of getting confused about whether
it's intending to change a GUC or an eponymous variable. Once you
make SET able to change either one of two different kinds of objects,
then that possibility does exist.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
