public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
Cc: Artem Gavrilov <[email protected]>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[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 08:03:04 +0800
Message-ID: <CAOBaU_YTJwo=jevDDKXRjwFUqON2VoWqz=Aw0FedyxbfYSiisw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYDdYA1paUKtfHfx-iDdCKrL05m2OwPHz7SQ03t49f2oQ@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>
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025, 03:24 Robert Haas, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [ some review ]
>
> Another thing that's occurring to me here is that nothing prevents
> other objects from making their way into the owned schema. Sure, if we
> create a new schema with nobody having any permissions, then only the
> creating role or some role that has its privileges can add anything in
> there. But that could happen by accident, or privileges could later be
> granted and somebody could add something into the extension schema
> after that. I wonder whether we should lock this down tighter somehow
> and altogether forbid creating objects in that schema except from an
> extension create/upgrade script for the owning extension.
>
I think that it would be too strict. 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. Such objects are not part of the extension and yet
are in control of the extension.
As an example powa already relies on that a lot (it creates new tables if
you register a new extension dynamically), and I'm about to add a feature
that create/drops s a bunch of inherited tables via a trigger when a remote
server is added / removed. I'm sure that there are a lot of other
extensions doing something similar.
>
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], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema
In-Reply-To: <CAOBaU_YTJwo=jevDDKXRjwFUqON2VoWqz=Aw0FedyxbfYSiisw@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