"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:51 PM Li EF Zhang <bjzhangl@cn.ibm.com> wrote: >> Thanks for your answer. My doubt is that since an ordinary user creates >> the extension, shouldn't be this user the owner of the objects created >> within the extension?
> While that is a possible implementation choice, that isn't what was chosen.
Let's be clear here: that is not some random implementor's decision. That is *necessary*, else the feature is completely insecure.
Fair. Additionally, an extension that wishes for ordinary users to perform limited configuration can always supply a security definer function to facilitate such a change. Though I'm unsure how/if it would go about arranging role permissions without requiring a superuser.
