| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com, tsukiwamoon(dot)pgsql(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Exposure related to GUC value of ssl_passphrase_command |
| Date: | 2020-02-13 09:11:07 |
| Message-ID: | 7a6f52d6-4160-6d34-565e-c52321dfb5b6@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-02-13 04:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:28:05AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> I think it is reasonable.
>
> Indeed, that makes sense to me as well. I am adding Peter Eisentraut
> in CC as the author/committer of 8a3d942 to comment on that.
I'm OK with changing that.
>> By the way, I'm not sure the criteria of setting a GUC variable as
>> GUC_SUPERUSER_ONLY, but for example, ssl_max/min_protocol_version,
>> dynamic_library_path, log_directory, krb_server_keyfile,
>> data_directory and config_file are GUC_SUPERUSER_ONLY. So, it seems to
>> me very strange that ssl_*_file are not. Don't we need to mark them
>> maybe and some of the other ssl_* as the same?
>
> This should be a separate discussion IMO. Perhaps there is a point in
> softening or hardening some of them.
I think some of this makes sense, and we should have a discussion about it.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-02-13 09:14:28 | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-02-13 09:02:31 | Re: client-side fsync() error handling |