On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema > for function or operator names, unless the calling SQL command > explicitly writes "pg_temp.foo(...)" or equivalent. That's an > ancient security decision, which we're unlikely to undo. It > certainly puts a crimp in the usefulness of putting extensions into > pg_temp, but I don't think it totally destroys the usefulness. > You could still use an extension to package, say, the definitions > of a bunch of temp tables and views that you need to create often.
Even with that, it should still be possible to enforce search_path within the extension script to allow such objects to be created correctly, no? That would be a bit hacky, still for the purpose of temp object handling that looks kind of enough to live with when creating an extension. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
