public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
To: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Artem Gavrilov <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeff Davis <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 09:37:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGECzQS9JqWv+zJR-e-1JMH7GhCnLc4vD9H-uEui8E5Ba9Trpw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOBaU_YTJwo=jevDDKXRjwFUqON2VoWqz=Aw0FedyxbfYSiisw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGECzQQzDqDzakBkR71ZkQ1N1ffTjAaruRSqppQAKu3WF+6rNQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAGECzQTe3y6xwP9aMbFBCxKnQEEn3G3=cEDqoD5xaOwPwypd_A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGECzQTAgtTp3G=Em3xEY=T=uiKfyu5xLYri9By=sfNBS5C_9A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKFQuwaT4_n=e0YKBZAyox1CQUra2ka0cySs+3pGZR5p50pn-g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGECzQTOJrnnJkmMe9nems0jouiKUbFcEb1rb9kE_svsAZiGQg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAGECzQS02M6YPDXemo36tShO-ZYObjqnyTJyVttua1PGyN4xRw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFPkQKzALOTTBrhj2qDHwVxZQyjF5Xg_P9M=Tn_Dcm3vr=xdTA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoY=NO7_L=UDuoUWj-icABF-7EP=UNUXCFBYpDNFoUZmbA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYDdYA1paUKtfHfx-iDdCKrL05m2OwPHz7SQ03t49f2oQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOBaU_YTJwo=jevDDKXRjwFUqON2VoWqz=Aw0FedyxbfYSiisw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 02:03, Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]> wrote:
> One not too uncommon scenario is an extension in a dedicated schema that creates additional objects dynamically, for instance creating new partitions using triggers on one of the extension table.
Interesting. I didn't know there were extensions that did that. That
definitely doesn't seem like a very common pattern though.
But I don't think that's a problem for this idea. In the
implementation I'm working on, superuser would still be allowed to
create objects in such locked down owned schemas. So as long as the
extension upgrades its permissions to superuser during these DDLs it
should still be fine. (easy to do with SECURITY DEFINER or by
temporarily changing permissions from C)
view thread (27+ 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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema
In-Reply-To: <CAGECzQS9JqWv+zJR-e-1JMH7GhCnLc4vD9H-uEui8E5Ba9Trpw@mail.gmail.com>
* 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