Re: creating objects in pg_catalog
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-06-06T20:39:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Checking to decide whether relations are system relations now depends
- 9999f5a10e72 7.3.1 cited
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > Right now, you can't directly create a relation (table, index, > composite type) in the pg_catalog schema, but you can create a > non-relation (function, domain, etc.) in the pg_catalog schema. Surely this is true only for superusers. Superusers can do whatever they want anyway, no? > Tabula raza, I'd argue for getting tough on this, and error out on any > attempt to get a user-created SQL object into pg_catalog by any means, > unless allow_system_table_mods is set. allow_system_table_mods is mainly intended to prevent people from altering the schemas of system catalogs, since it's more than likely that the backend C code will fail (nastily) to cope with such changes. I don't think it follows that we should prevent superusers from doing things that are perfectly safe, like adding new functions in pg_catalog. It's very likely that the specific restrictions enforced by allow_system_table_mods could stand a fresh look, but I don't agree with the idea of radically changing its charter. Nor do I think we need to put training wheels on superusers for any changes that aren't demonstrably likely to result in unrecoverable database corruption. regards, tom lane