Re: pg_primary_conninfo
| От | Gurjeet Singh |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_primary_conninfo |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTinuGqsoxsoL4eykBQX3fjvioOqX7qkb9KVGHuK1@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_primary_conninfo (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_primary_conninfo
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for SQL access, but exposing it via pg_settings opens up the security problem as there might be sensitive info in those GUCs.
On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:SQL access is frequently more convenient, though. Although maybe now that we've made recovery.conf use the GUC lexer we oughta continue in that vein and expose those parameters as PGC_INTERNAL GUCs rather than inventing a new function for it...
> I'm still wondering what's the actual use-case for exposing this inside
> SQL. Those with a legitimate need-to-know can look at the slave
> server's config files, no?
+1 for SQL access, but exposing it via pg_settings opens up the security problem as there might be sensitive info in those GUCs.
Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com
singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: