Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> It'll break most of the functions that we have in our production
> systems...  They're not security definer functions but it's routine for
> us to switch between different schemas to run a function on.

> What about pushing all the in-function references down to the
> specific objects referenced at plan creation time (err, I thought this
> was done?)?

Wouldn't that break exactly the cases you're worried about?  It would be
an enormous amount of work, too.
        regards, tom lane