Re: Notes on config-file-locations patch

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Notes on config-file-locations patch
Date: 2004-10-09 17:16:26
Message-ID: 200410091916.26217.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> The main difference between this and the CVS-tip behavior is that
> if you want to specify the main config file directly, you write
> --config_file instead of -D. I think that's less confusing than
> overloading -D with multiple meanings.

I seem to recall that this was proposed all along (with the option named
-C), before it was torn apart and reassembled. I'm happy with it.

> It wasn't clear to me whether we had a consensus to prevent
> non-superusers from reading the values of these GUC variables.

I think in general operating system details should be hidden from users.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-10-09 17:19:00 Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-10-09 17:11:52 Re: Security implications of config-file-location patch