| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
| Date: | 2015-09-02 21:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | 55E76C2D.3090405@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/02/2015 02:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> But I'm not sure I like the idea of adding a server dependency on the
>>> ability to exec pg_controldata. That seems like it could be
>>> unreliable at best, and a security vulnerability at worst.
>>
>> I hadn't been paying attention --- the proposed patch actually depends on
>> exec'ing pg_controldata? That's horrid! There is no expectation that
>> that's installed.
>
> No, it doesn't. For the pg_controldata output it processes the
> pg_control file directly, and for pg_config it relies on compile-time
> CPPFLAGS.
>
> I think trying to duplicate the exact strings isn't too nice an
> interface.
Well, for pg_controldata, no, but what else would you do for pg_config?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2015-09-02 21:46:59 | Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-09-02 21:36:30 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |