Re: Can we have a new SQL callable function to get Postmaster PID?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Can we have a new SQL callable function to get Postmaster PID? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3992522.1612389434@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Can we have a new SQL callable function to get Postmaster PID? (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Can we have a new SQL callable function to get Postmaster PID?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 2/3/21 4:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm disinclined to think that this is a good idea from a security >> perspective. Maybe if it's superuser-only it'd be ok (since a >> superuser would have other routes to discovering the value anyway). > Is the postmaster PID really sensitive? Users with OS access can just > list the processes, and for users without OS access / privileges it's > mostly useless, no? We disallow ordinary users from finding out the data directory location, even though that should be equally useless to unprivileged users. The postmaster PID seems like the same sort of information. It does not seem like a non-administrator could have any but nefarious use for that value. (Admittedly, this argument is somewhat weakened by exposing child processes' PIDs ... but you can't take down the whole installation by zapping a child process.) I'm basically in the same place you are in your other response: the question to ask is not "why not allow this?", but "why SHOULD we allow this?" regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: