Re: [PATCH] New predefined role pg_manage_extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: [PATCH] New predefined role pg_manage_extensions
Date
Msg-id d735a034fb567b844fb43753d02298da8775ad17.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] New predefined role pg_manage_extensions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2025-03-07 at 09:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:02 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
> > The reason why I walked back my comment was that cloud providers can
> > simply choose which extensions they actually add to the image. If an
> > extension is marked as not trusted by the author, then with this role
> > they can still choose to add it without having to make changes to the
> > control file if they think it's "secure enough".
>
> Hmm. It would be easy to do dumb things here, but I agree there are
> probably a bunch of debatable cases. Maybe it would be smart if we
> labelled our untrusted extensions somehow with why they're untrusted,
> or documented that.
>
> Why wouldn't the cloud provider just change add 'trusted = true' to
> the relevant control files instead of doing this?

That's quite true.  Perhaps the patch should be rejected after all.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Emre Hasegeli
Date:
Subject: Re: Trivial comment fix for tsquerysend()
Next
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: what's going on with lapwing?