Re: security_definer_search_path GUC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joel Jacobson
Subject Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Date
Msg-id dd2b2abe-74d4-428e-a4d0-db7bcb5d0034@www.fastmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: security_definer_search_path GUC  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 12:55, Pavel Stehule wrote:


út 1. 6. 2021 v 12:53 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 10:44, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Operators use schemas too.  I cannot imagine any work with operators with the necessity of explicit schemas.

I thought operators are mostly installed in the public schema, in which case that wouldn't be a problem, or am I missing something here?

It is inconsistency - if I use schema for almost all, then can be strange to store operators just to public.

I don't agree. If an extension provides functionality that is supposed to be used by all parts of the system, then I think the 'public' schema is a good choice.

Using schemas only for the sake of separation, i.e. adding the schemas to the search_path, to make them implicitly available, is IMO an ugly hack, since if just wanting separation without fully-qualifying, then packaging the objects are separate extensions is much cleaner. That way you can easily see what objects are provided by each extension using \dx+.

/Joel

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory