Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200709111822.35061.peter_e@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Am Dienstag, 11. September 2007 15:53 schrieb Tom Lane: > Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes: > > I have a question about what does happen if search path is not defined > > for SECURITY DEFINER function. My expectation is that SECURITY DEFINER > > function should defined empty search patch in this case. > > Your expectation is incorrect. We are not in the business of breaking > every application in sight, which is what that would do. Well, a SECURITY DEFINER function either sets its own search path, in which case a default search path would have no effect, or it doesn't set its own search path, in which case it's already broken (albeit in a different way). So setting a default search path can only be a net gain. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: