Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47BF051D.6040609@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > >> For example, since we don't support temp functions, we should probably >> ban the creation of functions in temp schemas (which I found was possible). >> > > What for? If you don't want someone to use a language, you should > either revoke his USAGE privilege on that language, or remove it > from his database altogether. > Good point. Actually, this has made me rethink the whole proposal. Things could get quite sticky if we have initdb put plpgsql in template1. The language would be owned by the superuser, not the db owner, and so the db owner would not be able to control usage on it. And if we withdrew usage on it from public in template1 the db owner wouldn't even be able to use the language. So on reflection I'm now inclined to say we should not change what we are now doing, which is simply to allow the db owner to install and control access to the language. Perhaps there is a case for removing public usage from the default ACL for languages, or at least for installable PLs, but I suspect that would just break huge numbers of apps, unless we had some sort of grandfather clause. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: