| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
| Date: | 2016-02-17 22:48:21 |
| Message-ID: | 56C4F8B5.4090104@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/17/2016 05:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
I'm in favor, and don't really want to rehearse the argument. But I
think I can live quite happily with it being superuser only. It's pretty
hard to argue that exposing it to a superuser creates much risk, ISTM.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-17 23:02:38 | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
| Previous Message | Pavel Raiskup | 2016-02-17 22:43:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Packaging of postgresql-jdbc |