Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 23:21:07 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
	"L. pgsql-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
Message-ID: <ajBrndVqomlY_qK1@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <239323.1781544176@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ajBrndVqomlY_qK1%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Jun-15, Tom Lane wrote:

> =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
> > My proposal would be that all operators, both system-defined as well as
> > user-defined, live in a single namespace -- not that we forbid them from
> > being created.
> 
> Exactly how does that improve anyone's life?  It will certainly not
> improve query security, rather the reverse.  You could no longer put
> less-trusted stuff into a schema that's not in your search_path.

I am imagining that only database owners would be able to create
operators.  There isn't any case for allowing that for anybody else,
ISTM.  How much need is there for "less-trusted" operators, really?

As long as it's not restricted to superusers, there is flexibility
enough.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/