Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query

From: Tomas Doran <bobtfish(at)bobtfish(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query
Date: 2008-03-28 17:58:33
Message-ID: 31E3BCC5-C720-4ACB-A93F-32E708C83B8B@bobtfish.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On 28 Mar 2008, at 17:23, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-07-05 at 19:48 +0100, Tomas Doran wrote:
>>> As suggested in the TODO list (and as I need the functionality
>>> myself), I have implemented the current_query interface to
>>> debug_query_string.
>
> It actually has been removed from the TODO list since you saw it last.

I submitted a patch to make it do that a while ago :)

>> Comments:
>>
> ...
>> * AFAIK debug_query_string() still does the wrong thing when the user
>> submits multiple queries in a single protocol message (separated by
>> semi-colons). Not sure there's a way to fix that that is both easy  
>> and
>> efficient, though...
>
> The problem with the last bullet is pretty serious.  It can be
> illustrated with psql:
>
> 	$ psql -c 'set log_statement="all";select 1;select 2;' test
>
> Server log shows:
>
> 	STATEMENT:  set log_statement=all;select 1;select 2;
>
> Obviously this is what current_query() would return if we commit this
> patch, and it probably isn't 100% accurate.

Yeah, this was pointed out to me at the time.

Fortunately, for what I wanted to do, 'Don't do that then' was a very  
viable answer..

> I see dblink exposes this:
>
>     http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/contrib-dblink- 
> current-query.html
>
>     Returns the currently executing interactive command string of the
>     local database session, or NULL if it can't be determined.  Note
>     that this function is not really related to <filename>dblink</>'s
>     other functionality.  It is provided since it is sometimes useful
>     in generating queries to be forwarded to remote databases.

My patch provided this functionality in core, and made dblink's  
current procedure to do the same just delegate to the one that I  
provided (for backwards compatibility reasons)


> but making it more widely available with a possible inaccurate  
> result is
> a problem.  We can't think of anyway to fix this cleanly --- it would
> require a separate parser pass to split queries by semicolons (which
> psql does by default in interactive mode).  Right now the parser does
> the splitting as part of its normal single-parse operation and just
> creates parse trees that don't have string representations.
>
> Perhaps we could name it received_query() to indicate it is what the
> backend received and it not necessarily the _current_ query.

reveived_query() sounds like a very sane name for me, and documenting  
it as such would allow you to expose the functionality without the  
possible complaints...

In a lot of environments where you actually want this, then  
constraining to 1 query per statement (outside the DB level) is very  
doable... I wouldn't like to see the functionality skipped over as  
providing this only solves 80% of cases.


In the particular application that I wrote the patch for, we needed  
to audit 'all access to encrypted credit card numbers' for PCI  
requirements..

Our solution was to put all cc number containing tables into their  
own schema / with no general permissions, and to use SECURITY DEFINER  
stored procedures to access them (and log the access).. However that  
wasn't quite good enough, so we got our DB access layer to iterate up  
the call stack (till outside our SQL abstraction), and add a comment  
to every query such that it took the form:

/* CodeFile-LineNo-UserId */ SELECT stored_procedure(arg1, arg2);

for all queries - so the caller information was encoded in the query  
info... Therefore, inside 'stored_procedure', logging the value of  
current_query() was perfect to satisfy our audit requirements, and we  
can just log the current query when we enter 'stored_procedure'.

Hope this helps to clarify that, whilst the current mechanism isn't  
in any way perfect - there are a number of use cases for including  
the functionality as-is.

Cheers
Tom


Cheers
Tom


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-03-28 18:15:46
Subject: Re: Commitfest patches
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-03-28 17:34:30
Subject: Re: Commitfest patches

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-03-28 18:21:15
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-03-28 17:23:09
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group