On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:04:48AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > ISTR that we discussed forbidding such changes way back when the > extension mechanism was invented, and decided against it on the > grounds that (a) it'd be nanny-ism, (b) we'd have to add checks in an > awful lot of places and it'd be easy to miss some,
The namepace modifications depending on the object types are quite centralized lately, FWIW. And that was the case in 9.3 as well since we have ExecAlterObjectSchemaStmt(). It would be easy to miss a new code path if somebody introduces a new object type that needs its own update path, but based on the last 15 years of experience on the matter, that would be unlikely? Adding a note at the top of ExecAlterObjectSchemaStmt() would make that even harder to miss. > and (c) forbidding > superusers from doing anything they want is generally not our style. Yeah. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
