Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions
Date
Msg-id CAOBaU_ajU-4S6F-ROOuE70QG=bn+gV8Z--_0F=2kD4cMacXPbQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions  ("Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com>)
Responses Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions
List pgsql-general
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:51 PM Daniel Westermann (DWE)
<daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:28:45PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> >> > I was playing a bit with trusted extensions and wondered if there is
> >> > a reason that the "trusted" flag is not exposed in pg_available_extensions.
> >> > I believe that information would be quite useful so one can easily
> >> > identify extensions that can be installed as "normal" user.
> >>
> >> Adding the trusted flag makes sense for visibility.  There is a bit
> >> more that we could consider though?  For example, what about
> >> "relocatable" and "requires"?
>
> >+1, and also the schema (for non relocatable extensions).

So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
fields so all the required infrastructure was already there.  I just
added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
patch.

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Paul Förster
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE
Next
From: Paul Förster
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE