Re: Installing PL/pgSQL by default
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Date: 2009-12-09T02:39:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
Attachments
- /pgpatches/plpgsql (text/x-diff) patch
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > Before we go too far with this, I'd like to know how we will handle the > > problems outlined here: > > <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg00916.php> > > Hm, I think that's only a problem if we define it to be a problem, > and I'm not sure it's necessary to do so. Currently, access to PL > languages is controlled by superusers. You are suggesting that if > plpgsql is installed by default, then access to it should be controlled > by non-superuser DB owners instead. Why do we have to move the > goalposts in that direction? It's not like we expect that DB owners > should control access to other built-in facilities, like int8 or > pg_stat_activity for example. The argument against having plpgsql > always available is essentially one of security risks, and I would > expect that most installations think that security risks are to be > managed by superusers. I installed PL/pgSQL by default via initdb with the attached patch. The only problem is that pg_dump still dumps out the language creation: CREATE PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql; ALTER PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql OWNER TO postgres; What is odd is that I used the same process that initdb uses to create other objects. Does anyone know why this is happening? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +