Thread

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

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> — 2025-09-02T00:03:04Z

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025, 03:24 Robert Haas, <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [ some review ]
>
> Another thing that's occurring to me here is that nothing prevents
> other objects from making their way into the owned schema. Sure, if we
> create a new schema with nobody having any permissions, then only the
> creating role or some role that has its privileges can add anything in
> there. But that could happen by accident, or privileges could later be
> granted and somebody could add something into the extension schema
> after that. I wonder whether we should lock this down tighter somehow
> and altogether forbid creating objects in that schema except from an
> extension create/upgrade script for the owning extension.
>

I think that it would be too strict. One not too uncommon scenario is an
extension in a dedicated schema that creates additional objects
dynamically, for instance creating new partitions using triggers on one of
the extension table.  Such objects are not part of the extension and yet
are in control of the extension.

As an example powa already relies on that a lot (it creates new tables if
you register a new extension dynamically), and I'm about to add a feature
that create/drops s a bunch of inherited tables via a trigger when a remote
server is added / removed. I'm sure that there are a lot of other
extensions doing something similar.

>