On 9/2/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought about ways to include GUC settings directly into CREATE > FUNCTION, but it seemed pretty ugly and inconsistent with the > existing syntax. So I'm thinking of supporting only the above > syntaxes, meaning it'll take at least two commands to create a secure > SECURITY DEFINER function.
There's a niceness to being able to tell Postgres everything it needs to know about a function in the one CREATE FUNCTION command. So if we integrated the GUC settings into CREATE FUNCTION, we'd end up writing something like CREATE FUNCTION foo(int) RETURNS int AS $$ ... $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql STABLE STRICT SECURITY DEFINER RESET search_path SET regex_flavor = 'cinnamon'; That doesn't seem especially horrible. In what way do you feel it is inconsistent with existing syntax? And ... although I'll admit this is a paranoid thing to mention, if you have to fix the search_path setting *after* creating a function as SECURITY DEFINER, then there is necessarily a short period of time where the function exists and is insecure. Cheers, BJ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
