Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema

Sadeq Dousti <msdousti@gmail.com>

From: Sadeq Dousti <msdousti@gmail.com>

To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>

Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <me@jeltef.nl>, Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>, Artem Gavrilov <artem.gavrilov@percona.com>

Date: 2025-07-28T00:45:21Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

You're absolutely right about the lack of interactivity. I'd still go with
your suggestion of using something along the lines of cascade/force, as
dropping the schema silently can potentially delete the user data.

Bests,
Sadeq

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 02:27 David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sunday, July 27, 2025, Sadeq Dousti <msdousti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> (a) The patch affects DROP EXTENSION in that it drops the schema as well,
>> if it's owned by the extension. This needs to be mentioned in the
>> documentation. In addition, an extra confirmation (e.g., "This will drop
>> schema nnnn as well, do you wish to continue?") when dropping the
>> extension might be desired, as the extension schema could contain user
>> data (e.g., pg_cron keeps the jobs and their execution details).
>>
>
> SQL isn’t interactive in this sense.  There isn’t a way to ask “are you
> sure?”.  At best the server can refuse to do something unless additional
> options, like “force/cascade” are present in the command.
>
> David J.
>
>