Re: Restrict ALTER FUNCTION CALLED ON NULL INPUT (was Re: Not quite a security hole: CREATE LANGUAGE for non-superusers)

>Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: 
> If we had an independent way to have the function run as a
> specific user, where that user DIDN'T own the function, I think
> Kevin's use case would be satisfied.
I agree.  I'm not sure quite what that would look like, but maybe
SECURITY ROLE <rolename> or some such could be an alternative to
SECURITY INVOKER and SECURITY DEFINER.  (I haven't looked to see
what the standard has here.)
-Kevin