Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > 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. If you're suggesting that we disable that security restriction during extension creation, I really can't see how that'd be a good thing ... regards, tom lane