Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
| От | Joel Jacobson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | dd2b2abe-74d4-428e-a4d0-db7bcb5d0034@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 12:55, Pavel Stehule wrote:
út 1. 6. 2021 v 12:53 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 10:44, Pavel Stehule wrote:Operators use schemas too. I cannot imagine any work with operators with the necessity of explicit schemas.I thought operators are mostly installed in the public schema, in which case that wouldn't be a problem, or am I missing something here?It is inconsistency - if I use schema for almost all, then can be strange to store operators just to public.
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.
Using schemas only for the sake of separation, i.e. adding the schemas to the search_path, to make them implicitly available, is IMO an ugly hack, since if just wanting separation without fully-qualifying, then packaging the objects are separate extensions is much cleaner. That way you can easily see what objects are provided by each extension using \dx+.
/Joel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: