| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
| Date: | 2015-09-03 00:44:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobTOBdxmBgiVT3R72wKzCJzvrhv9bcxoP3YzxBS2qQaXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/02/2015 05:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> But I'm not sure I like the idea of adding a server dependency on
>>> the ability to exec pg_controldata. That seems like it could be
>>> unreliable at best, and a security vulnerability at worst.
>>
>> I hadn't been paying attention --- the proposed patch actually
>> depends on exec'ing pg_controldata? That's horrid! There is no
>> expectation that that's installed.
>
> No it doesn't. I'm confused :-/
No, I'm confused. Sorry. Somehow I misread your patch.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-03 00:44:35 | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-03 00:41:23 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |