Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions
Дата
Msg-id CAH2-Wzn=pagMN67AjwhwCx-SKeCTfuQyER9Jby73trXtogZcvw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Ответы Re: Tightening behaviour for non-immutable behaviour in immutable functions  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:51 PM Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
> By "relatively common" I think we're talking "nigh universal". Afaics
> there are no warnings in the docs about worrying about search_path on
> IMMUTABLE functions. There is for SECURITY DEFINER but I have to admit
> I wasn't aware myself of all the gotchas described there.

I didn't realize that it was that bad. Even if it's only 10% as bad as
you say, it would still be very valuable to do something about it
(ideally with an approach that is non-invasive).

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 2022-06-16 release announcement draft
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?