| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
| Date: | 2016-02-17 22:14:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4175.1455747271@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 2/17/16 12:15 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Ok, removed the documentation on the function pg_config() and pushed.
> I still have my serious doubts about this, especially not even requiring
> superuser access for this information. Could someone explain why we
> need this?
I thought we'd agreed on requiring superuser access for this function.
I concur that letting just anyone see the config data is inappropriate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-17 22:17:29 | Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2016-02-17 22:13:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Packaging of postgresql-jdbc |