On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I don't particularly care for that solution; it seems like a kludge. >> I've kind of wondered whether we ought to have checks in all the ALTER >> routines that spit up if you try to ALTER an extension member from any >> place other than an extension upgrade script... but that still >> wouldn't prevent the extension owner from dropping the members out of >> the extension and then modifying them afterwards. I'm not sure we >> want to prevent that in general, but maybe there could be some >> locked-down mode that has that effect. > > Right, I wasn't too clear about that, but I meant that we'd have some > sort of locked-down state for an extension that would forbid fooling > with its contents. For development purposes, or for anybody that "knows > what they're doing", adding/subtracting/modifying member objects is > mighty handy. But a non-superuser who's loaded an extension that > contains C functions ought not have those privileges for it.
I could see having such a mode. I'm not sure that it would eliminate people's desire to manually give away functions, though. In fact, thinking about a couple of our customers, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. Now whether it's a good idea is another question, but... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
