* Merlin Moncure ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > fwiw, I think this is a great solution...because the default behavior > is preserved you get through without any extra guc settings (although > you may want to add one anyways).
I agree that the proposed solution looks good. > maybe security definer functions should raise a warning for implicit > PATH NONE, and possibly even deprecate that behavior and force people > to type it out in future (8.4+) releases. While I agree that raising a warning makes sense I don't believe it should be forced. There may be cases where, even in security definer functions, the current search_path should be used (though, of course, care must be taken in writing such functions). Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature