On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 10:47:04AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Isaac Morland <isaac.morl...@gmail.com> writes: > > While I'm asking, does anybody know why this isn't the default, especially > > for SECURITY DEFINER functions? > > It might fix some subset of security issues, but I think that changing > the default behavior like that would break a bunch of other use-cases. > It'd be especially surprising for such a thing to apply only to > SECURITY DEFINER functions.
Some projects consider breaking backwards compatibility to fix security problems (within reason, and with discussion) to be a fair thing to do. Already people have to qualify their apps for every release of PG. I think this problem very much deserves a good solution. Nico --