From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |
Date: | 2016-06-29 21:18:49 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTJARK56LhPHb=GH_atAsKDiauvy+RG1b9Lq9_whBjWTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> I propose to push this patch, closing the open item, and you can rework
>> on top -- I suppose you would completely remove the original conninfo
>> from shared memory and instead only copy the obfuscated version there
>> (and probably also remove the ready_to_display flag). I think we'd need
>> to see the patch before deciding whether we want it in 9.6 or not,
>> keeping in mind that having the conninfo in shared memory is a
>> pre-existing problem, unrelated to the pgstats view new in 9.6.
>
> Pushed this. Feel free to tinker further with it, if you feel the need
> to.
>
> Regarding backpatching the clearing of shared memory, I'm inclined not
> to. If there is a real security concern there (I'm unsure what attack
> are we protecting against), it may be better fixed by the approach
> suggested by Fujii whereby the sensitive info is not ever published in
> shared memory.
Yes, this is not going to be pretty invasive anyway. The cleanest way
to handle things here would be to refactor a bit xlog.c
(xlogparams.c?) so as readRecoveryCommandFile is exposed in its own
file, and the recovery parameters are handled in a single structure,
which is the return result of the call. To reduce a bit the cruft in
xlog.c that would be nice anyway I guess.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-06-29 21:40:15 | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-06-29 21:01:23 | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |