Horton

Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
Date: 2013-05-13T17:03:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2013-05-13 12:59:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >> Another way to fix that inconsistency is to consider that
> >> allow_system_table_mods should gate table creations not just drops in
> >> pg_catalog.  I'm not real sure why this wasn't the case all along ...
> >
> > Uh, scratch that last comment: actually, allow_system_table_mods *did*
> > gate that, in every existing release.  I bitched upthread about the fact
> > that this was changed in 9.3, and did not hear any very satisfactory
> > defense of the change.
> 
> It disallowed it only for tables, and not for any other object type.
> I found that completely arbitrary.  It's perfectly obvious that people
> want to be able to create objects in pg_catalog; shall we adopt a rule
> that you can put extension there, as long as those extensions don't
> happen to contain tables?  That is certainly confusing and arbitrary.

Why don't we just prohibit deletion/modification for anything below
FirstNormalObjectId instead of using the schema as a restriction? Then
we can allow creation for tables as well.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Extend and improve use of EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS.

  2. Remove misplaced sanity check from heap_create().

  3. Silently ignore any nonexistent schemas that are listed in search_path.