Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings

Tom Lane wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> Comments?

I have a question about what does happen if search path is not defined 
for SECURITY DEFINER function. My expectation is that SECURITY DEFINER 
function should defined empty search patch in this case. This behavior 
is similar to how dynamic linker processes setuid binaries - (ignoring 
LD_LIBRARY_PATH and so on).

    Zdenek