Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Even there seems to be ongoing discussions on changing version number
>>> while in the beta period (and which definitely requires initdb). Why
>>> not changing system catalog during beta?:-)
>
>> I am not directly against that to be honest, but I'd expect Tom's
>> wraith showing up soon on this thread just by saying that. In the two
>> last releases, catalog bumps before beta2 because there were no other
>> choice. This issue is not really critical, just a stupid miss from me,
>> and we can live with this mistake as well.
>
> Since pg_stat_wal_receiver is new in 9.6, it seems to me that it'd be
> wise to try to get it right the first time. And it's not like we are
> going to get to beta3 without another initdb --- we already know the
> partial-aggregate design is broken and needs some more catalog changes.

Amen. That's a sufficient argument to slip this one into 9.6 then.

> What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a
> good idea. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security
> implications of exposing primary_conninfo --- might it not contain a
> password, for example?

Yes it could, as a connection string, but we make the information of
this view only visible to superusers. For the others, that's just
NULL.
--
Michael