Andres Freund pointed out that allowing non-superusers to run
"CREATE EXTENSION ... FROM unpackaged" has security risks, since
the unpackaged-to-1.0 scripts don't try to verify that the existing
objects they're modifying are what they expect. Just attaching such
objects to an extension doesn't seem too dangerous, but some of them
do more than that.
We could have resolved this, perhaps, by still requiring superuser
privilege to use the FROM option. However, it's fair to ask just what
we're accomplishing by continuing to lug the unpackaged-to-1.0 scripts
forward. None of them have received any real testing since 9.1 days,
so they may not even work anymore (even assuming that one could still
load the previous "loose" object definitions into a v13 database).
And an installation that's trying to go from pre-9.1 to v13 or later
in one jump is going to have worse compatibility problems than whether
there's a trivial way to convert their contrib modules into extension
style.
Hence, let's just drop both those scripts and the core-code support
for "CREATE EXTENSION ... FROM".
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200213233015.r6rnubcvl4egdh5r@alap3.anarazel.de
Commit 749a787c5b bumped the extension
version on all of these extensions already, and we haven't had a
release since then, so we can make further changes without bumping the
extension version again. Take this opportunity to mark all of the
functions exported by these modules PARALLEL SAFE -- except for
pg_trgm's set_limit(). Mark that one PARALLEL RESTRICTED, because it
makes a persistent change to a GUC value.
Note that some of the markings added by this commit don't have any
effect; for example, gseg_picksplit() isn't likely to be mentioned
explicitly in a query and therefore it's parallel-safety marking will
never be consulted. But this commit just marks everything for
consistency: if it were somehow used in a query, that would be fine as
far as parallel query is concerned, since it does not consult any
backend-private state, attempt to write data, etc.
Andreas Karlsson, with a few revisions by me.
In commits 9ff60273e3 and dbe2328959 I (tgl) fixed the
signatures of a bunch of contrib's GIN and GIST support functions so that
they would pass validation by the recently-added amvalidate functions.
The backend does not actually consult or check those signatures otherwise,
so I figured this was basically cosmetic and did not require an extension
version bump. However, Alexander Korotkov pointed out that that would
leave us in a pretty messy situation if we ever wanted to redefine those
functions later, because there wouldn't be a unique way to name them.
Since we're going to be bumping these extensions' versions anyway for
parallel-query cleanups, let's take care of this now.
Andreas Karlsson, adjusted for more search-path-safety by me
Tom Lane
Robert Haas