Re: pg_primary_conninfo

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_primary_conninfo
Date: 2010-12-28 18:52:12
Message-ID: 4D1A31DC.8080401@lelarge.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Le 28/12/2010 19:30, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> SQL access is frequently more convenient, though. Although maybe now that
>>> we've made recovery.conf use the GUC lexer we oughta continue in that vein
>>> and expose those parameters as PGC_INTERNAL GUCs rather than inventing a new
>>> function for it...
>
>> +1 for SQL access, but exposing it via pg_settings opens up the security
>> problem as there might be sensitive info in those GUCs.
>
> IIRC we do have a GUC property that hides the value from non-superusers,
> so we could easily have a GUC that is equivalent to the proposed
> pg_primary_conninfo function. Of course this does nothing for my
> objections to the function. Also, I'm not sure how we'd deal with the
> state-dependency aspect of it (ie, value changes once you exit recovery
> mode).
>

We already have superuser GUC.

b1=> show data_directory;
ERROR: must be superuser to examine "data_directory"

We only need to do the same for primary_conninfo and trigger_file (as I
remember it, there are the only ones needing this).

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gurjeet Singh 2010-12-28 19:02:36 Re: pg_primary_conninfo
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-12-28 18:44:12 Re: the number of file descriptors when using POSIX semaphore