Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzn=pagMN67AjwhwCx-SKeCTfuQyER9Jby73trXtogZcvw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:51 PM Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
> By "relatively common" I think we're talking "nigh universal". Afaics
> there are no warnings in the docs about worrying about search_path on
> IMMUTABLE functions. There is for SECURITY DEFINER but I have to admit
> I wasn't aware myself of all the gotchas described there.

I didn't realize that it was that bad. Even if it's only 10% as bad as
you say, it would still be very valuable to do something about it
(ideally with an approach that is non-invasive).

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: 2022-06-16 release announcement draft
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?