From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
Date: | 2015-08-24 11:38:19 |
Message-ID: | 55DB022B.3090401@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/23/2015 08:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> 2) No docs or related regression test yet. I will do that if there is
>> enough interest in this getting committed. So far no one except Andrew
>> and I have chimed in.
> I think that's a good thing to have, now I have concerns about making
> this data readable for non-superusers. Cloud deployments of Postgres
> are logically going to block the access of this view.
I don't think it exposes any information of great security value.
> + Datum pg_config(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
> +
> + PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(pg_config);
>
> The declaration of the function is not needed, PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1
> takes care of it.
Umm, we shouldn't be using PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 in backend code at all, IIRC.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-08-24 12:47:57 | Re: psql - better support pipe line |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-08-24 11:02:10 | Re: psql - better support pipe line |