Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uuWw6-00BrKU-MV for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 13:57:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uuWw4-007scF-In for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 13:57:05 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uuWw4-007sc6-7p for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 13:57:04 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uuWw2-000glw-2f for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 13:57:03 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 585Duv851363070; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 09:56:57 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "David G. Johnston" cc: PALAYRET Jacques , "pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" Subject: Re: PostgreSQL include directive in plpgsql language PL/pgSQL In-reply-to: References: <1985501673.206991527.1757078030654.JavaMail.zimbra@meteo.fr> Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" message dated "Fri, 05 Sep 2025 06:21:37 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1363068.1757080617.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:56:57 -0400 Message-ID: <1363069.1757080617@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk "David G. Johnston" writes: > On Friday, September 5, 2025, PALAYRET Jacques > wrote: >> Is there an equivalent of #include (include directive) in functions >> (written in plpgsql language)? > No, there is not. And there won't be one in the future either, as it would give server filesystem access to unprivileged SQL users. (Admittedly just read-only access, but that's still not OK.) Conceivably you could build some such facility into your client-side code that is issuing CREATE FUNCTION commands. regards, tom lane