Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> It would be useful to have a function which could be passed a relative
> (to the caller's search path) object name and would return the fully
> qualified name of that object.  In this way, functions could be written
> which take relative arguments from the user but *only* those explicitly
> checked for.

Your example doesn't seem to be doing anything interesting ... am I
misunderstanding, or did you omit the actual checking?  Also, if the
search path is controlled by the function, what good is this ---
wouldn't it always result in a trusted schema?
        regards, tom lane