Thread: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions
Hi, 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. Regards Daniel
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"? -- Michael
Attachment
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).
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). +1
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
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
The reason that pg_available_extensions has only the fields it has
is that these other values are potentially extension-version-dependent.
I do not think we can accept this patch.
(Strictly speaking, the "comment" might be version-specific too, but
there's less chance of printing a critically misleading value there.)
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 10:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes: > > 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. > > The reason that pg_available_extensions has only the fields it has > is that these other values are potentially extension-version-dependent. > I do not think we can accept this patch. Oh, I didn't know there could be multiple control files per extension, and I missed the "aux" reference. So indeed this patch is unacceptable.