Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:05:10 -0400
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Jeff Davis <jdavis@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance
 operations.
Message-ID: <20230612170510.GA201972@gust.leadboat.com>
References: <E1q7j7Y-000z1H-Hr@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <89a415b86d5421941e4281ba5bf6288934078624.camel@j-davis.com>
 <d20864b929ff769a0ebf772359719f05bb6982cd.camel@j-davis.com>
 <573014.1686375211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <573014.1686375211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230612170510.GA201972%40gust.leadboat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 01:33:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> > Attached a patch to mark those functions as PARALLEL UNSAFE, which
> > fixes the problem.
> 
> > Alternatively, I could just take out that line, as those SQL functions
> > are not controlled by the MAINTAIN privilege. But for consistency I
> > think it's a good idea to leave it in so that index functions are
> > called with the right search path for amcheck.
> 
> I concur with the upthread objection that it is way too late in
> the release cycle to be introducing a breaking change like this.
> I request that you revert it.

The timing was not great, but this is fixing a purported defect in an older
v16 feature.  If the MAINTAIN privilege is actually fine, we're all set for
v16.  If MAINTAIN does have a material problem that $SUBJECT had fixed, we
should either revert MAINTAIN, un-revert $SUBJECT, or fix the problem a
different way.