Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions

On Thu, 2024-06-06 at 21:17 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> That can be controlled via some GUC if needed, I guess.

That's a possibility, but it's easy to create a mess that way. I don't
necessarily oppose it, but we'd need some pretty strong agreement that
we are somehow moving users in a better direction and not just creating
two behaviors that last forever.

I also think there should be a way to explicitly request the old
behavior -- obtaining search_path from the session -- regardless of how
the GUC is set.

> I didn't get you completely here. w.r.t extensions how will this have
> an impact if we set the search_path for definer functions. 

If we only set the search path for SECURITY DEFINER functions, I don't
think that solves the whole problem.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis