From: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: use GUC for cmdline |
Date: | 2001-06-22 00:36:40 |
Message-ID: | 20010622023640.A12679@l-t.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:50:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> >> This seems like an appropriate fix. I would recommend doing the same
> >> with all the option switch settings that are protected with "if
> >> (secure)". This is not a hack: essentially it says we will treat
> >> options passed to the postmaster with -o as postmaster-time options.
>
> > - if (secure)
> > - SetConfigOption("shared_buffers", optarg, ctx, true);
> > + SetConfigOption("shared_buffers", optarg, secure_ctx, true);
>
> Uh, removing the security checks is NOT what I had in mind. Wasn't
> my example clear enough?
Ee, this is done in set_config_option?
secure_ctx = PGC_POSTMASTER until '-p' then it will
get ordinary 'ctx'. This should follow use of secure.
Ofcourse this assumes all GUC vars you want to protect
with 'secure' have PGC_POSTMASTER/PGC_SIGHUP as context.
Wont it be true?
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-22 01:09:20 | Re: use GUC for cmdline |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2001-06-22 00:33:59 | Re: Re: [ADMIN] High memory usage [PATCH] |