Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2657600.1674661989@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function (Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com> writes: > I agree that the developer can use both GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL and > GUC_EXPLAIN knowingly or unknowingly for a single GUC. If used by > mistake then according to the existing code (without patch), > GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL takes higher precedence whether it is marked first or > last in the code. I am more convinced with this behaviour as I feel it > is safer than exposing the information which the developer might not > have intended. Both of you are arguing as though GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL is a security property. It is not, or at least it's so trivially bypassable that it's useless to consider it one. All it is is a de-clutter mechanism. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: