On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:05:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > So you are saying PG functions should lock down their search path at >> > function definition time, and use that for all function invocations? >> >> Yes, mostly. I don't think we can just change the existing behavior; >> it would break a catastrophic amount of stuff. But we could add an >> optional feature that does this, and encourage people to use it, much >> the way Perl continues to support "local" even though "my" has been a >> best practice for several decades. > > So each function defines its search_path, and each function you call sets > its own search_path, basically? That is what you mean by lexical scope? > I think if this approach was fully secure, it would get more traction.
By lexical scope, I mean a search_path that applies only to the SQL queries that textually appear within that function definition, not code that they call indirectly. The SET clause attached to a function uses dynamic scope. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(computer_science)#Lexical_scope_vs._dynamic_scope -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
