On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:58:47PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > Do you, overall, find this feature useful? > > Most functions don't need pg_temp, so it feels cleaner to exclude it. > But pg_temp is ignored for function/op lookup anyway, so functions > won't be exposed to search_path risks related to pg_temp unless they > are accessing tables. > > If my proposal for the SEARCH clause got more support, I'd be more > excited about this feature because it could be set implicitly as part > of a safe search_path. Without the SEARCH clause, the only way to set > "!pg_temp" is by typing it out, and I'm not sure a lot of people will > actually do that.
I thought it sounded generally useful, but if we're not going to proceed with the primary use-case for this feature, then perhaps it's not worth going through this particular one-way door at this time. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
