Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema
Date
Msg-id DGBO0D6A5NLP.1D1EIO0UO4L3H@jeltef.nl
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 16:52, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. Perhaps that needs some associated tests?

Added now in v8, as well as a bunch of other tests. Including a test for
trusted extensions, and a fix so that for trusted extensions the owned
schema is owned by the bootstrap superuser. Changes made since v7 can be
found in nocfbot.changes.diff.

> To be honest, I'm kind of leaning at this point toward saying we
> shouldn't impose any special restrictions here. If the DROP doesn't
> cascade, then the worst thing that can happen is that you make it hard
> for yourself to drop your own extension cleanly. I think letting the
> superuser and the schema owner do things and other people not is too
> weird -- it basically boils down to ignoring GRANT sometimes, and I
> think users will find it confusing.

I agree. I kept it like that.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we still need MULE_INTERNAL?
Next
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: access numeric data in module