| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions |
| Date: | 2024-04-26 18:43:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20240426184305.qhsycq6c6m2vlu6t@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-04-26 14:39:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I don't think enabling backtraces without a way to disable them is a good idea
> > - security vulnerablilities in backtrace generation code are far from unheard
> > of and can make error handling a lot slower...
>
> Well, in that case we have to have some kind of control GUC, and
> I think the consensus is that the one we have now is under-designed.
> So I also vote for a full revert and try again in v18.
Yea, makes sense. I just wanted to point out that some level of control is
needed, not say that what we have now is right.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-26 18:59:03 | Re: Why don't we support external input/output functions for the composite types |
| Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2024-04-26 18:42:37 | Re: Why don't we support external input/output functions for the composite types |