| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) |
| Date: | 2019-07-10 20:21:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaDoVtMnfKNFm-iyyCSp=FPiHkfU1AXuEHJqmcLTAX6kQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:59 AM Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm still a bit conflicted about what to do with search_path as I do believe this is potentially a security issue.
> It may be that we always want to report that and possibly back patch it.
I don't see that as a feasible option unless we make the logic that
does the reporting smarter. If it changes transiently inside of a
security-definer function, and then changes back, my recollection is
that right now we would report both changes. I think that could cause
a serious efficiency problem if you are calling such a function in a
loop.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-10 20:34:01 | Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-07-10 20:11:21 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |