From: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_primary_conninfo |
Date: | 2010-12-28 18:22:48 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinuGqsoxsoL4eykBQX3fjvioOqX7qkb9KVGHuK1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I'm still wondering what's the actual use-case for exposing this inside
> > SQL. Those with a legitimate need-to-know can look at the slave
> > server's config files, no?
>
> 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.
Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-28 18:28:01 | Re: TODO item for pg_ctl and server detection |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-28 18:19:58 | Re: pg_primary_conninfo |