Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
От | Gregory Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87ps12jmyg.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | 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 |
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > I thought about ways to include GUC settings directly into CREATE > FUNCTION, but it seemed pretty ugly and inconsistent with the > existing syntax. So I'm thinking of supporting only the above > syntaxes, meaning it'll take at least two commands to create a secure > SECURITY DEFINER function. I think security definer functions should automatically inherit their search_path. The whole "secure by default" thing. It might be best to have a guc variable which controls the variables which are automatically saved. regexp_flavour and maybe a handful of others could be in it by default. But that might depend on how expensive it is at run-time. I wouldn't want trivial SQL functions to no longer be inline-able because one might one day use a regexp for example. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: