public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jan Behrens <[email protected]>
To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: search_path for PL/pgSQL functions partially cached?
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:48:49 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwaU19_6HaB+9-L-fQhjUr8_5ACvxLAPRBhEdfLv9JVZBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CAKFQuwb4hgHH=Z6cx5Hh_qc10TCYMb1QVfP3099X1Psmyw0r3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAKFQuwaU19_6HaB+9-L-fQhjUr8_5ACvxLAPRBhEdfLv9JVZBg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:34:57 -0700
"David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Friday, January 3, 2025, Jan Behrens <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to know if the above example is correct. It seems overall
> > bulky, but I haven't found a better way, assuming that it can be
> > unknown where a particular extension has been installed to. In
> > particular I feel a bit insecure about where I have to fully qualify,
> > and where not. See the comments in the code above.
> 
> 
> Short answer, you cannot looking at a definition and know the answer -
> whether the code is going to be executed in a sanitized search_path is what
> matters.

I don't understand. Do you mean my last example is wrong / insecure?
If so, why?

> Anything that would be executed during pg_restore has to be made
> safe.  Therefore, code that is only ever executed by applications directly
> can use swarch_path.

Why should the function be executed during pg_restore?

> 
> I’d probably modify the function signature to take search_path as a second
> optional argument and then invoke a set search_path within the function.
> At worse the caller can place current_setting(search_path) as the value of
> that argument though being explicit would be recommended.
> 
> David J.

I could do that, but I would like to understand if that is really
necessary as it makes the interface more complicated, and I would like
to avoid unnecessary complexity in my interface.

Is it really impossible to have functions without SET search_path in
the definition of a PL/pgSQL function if I fully-qualify all types in
the DECLARE section and if all other non-qualified identifiers occur
after set_config('search_path', ...)?

Kind regards,
Jan Behrens

view thread (33+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: search_path for PL/pgSQL functions partially cached?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox