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

Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>,PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions
Date: 2004-07-24 16:42:45
Message-ID: 5006.1090687365@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Agreed it should be relative to the log directory, which may or not be
> under PGDATA, and don't let them go up above it.  Is there any downside
> to allowing absolute reads as well because COPY can already read
> absolute files.

Perhaps not from a security point of view, but I think it would be
rather bizarre for a general-purpose pg_read_file() function to default
to reading from the log directory.  From the point of view of having
a consistent API, it'd be better to call the functions something like
pg_read_logdirectory() and pg_read_logfile() and restrict them to the
log directory.  If we later decide we want to add a general
pg_read_file() operation, we won't have to contort its operation to
preserve compatibility with the log-fetching case.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-07-24 16:52:29
Subject: Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-24 16:32:36
Subject: Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions

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