From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_primary_conninfo |
Date: | 2010-12-28 18:30:44 |
Message-ID: | 7795.1293561044@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> SQL access is frequently more convenient, though. Although maybe now that
>> we've made recovery.conf use the GUC lexer we oughta continue in that vein
>> and expose those parameters as PGC_INTERNAL GUCs rather than inventing a new
>> function for it...
> +1 for SQL access, but exposing it via pg_settings opens up the security
> problem as there might be sensitive info in those GUCs.
IIRC we do have a GUC property that hides the value from non-superusers,
so we could easily have a GUC that is equivalent to the proposed
pg_primary_conninfo function. Of course this does nothing for my
objections to the function. Also, I'm not sure how we'd deal with the
state-dependency aspect of it (ie, value changes once you exit recovery
mode).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-28 18:44:12 | Re: the number of file descriptors when using POSIX semaphore |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-28 18:28:01 | Re: TODO item for pg_ctl and server detection |