Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
| От | Joel Jacobson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1c245ba8-c68f-48ac-94f2-f4a9a2baff70@www.fastmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 14:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
út 1. 6. 2021 v 13:13 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal: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.I disagreeusual design of extensions (when schema is used) iscreate schema ...set schema ...create tablecreate functionIt is hard to say if it is good or it is bad.
Yes, it's hard, because it's a matter of taste.
Some prefer convenience, others clarity/safety.
Orafce using my own schema, and some things are in public (and some in pg_catalog), and people don't tell me, so it was a good choice.
I struggle to understand this last sentence.
So you orafce extension installs objects in both public and pg_catalog, right.
But what do you mean with "people don't tell me"?
And what "was a good choice"?
Thanks for explaining.
/Joel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: