From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
        Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
        Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
        Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
        Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fix unqualified catalog references in psql describe queries
In-reply-to: <aijEfGcHUJvqjzNj@paquier.xyz>
References: <C809E3C7-2437-486E-B626-0BE5F40BBB6C@gmail.com>
 <aie76hpKavQ9nAqd@paquier.xyz> <aifYIhmiqNr9mf6f@bdtpg>
 <aijEfGcHUJvqjzNj@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:57:16 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1236172.1781057568.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 22:12:48 -0400
Message-ID: <1236173.1781057568@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1236173.1781057568%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 09:08:50AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> Now I wonder if we shoud not "protect" the operators too. They could also
>> lead to wrong results (if not worst).

> Kind of true.  Still we have been pretty lax about the operators as
> they also lead to less readable queries.

We disclaimed security against odd search_paths for these queries long ago,
precisely because wrapping every operator in PG_OPERATOR(pg_catalog.*)
would be far too tedious and destructive of readability --- not to
mention that there are some syntaxes such as IN that don't even offer
the option to do that.

I'm okay with schema-qualifying these table references, mainly because
that preserves consistency with historical style here.  But let's not
go further than that.

			regards, tom lane