| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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 21:55:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTd8R-CPsRr5AxGNTYcH8-32wiH589WTBmO=Gxkdcyv8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> There was also that (old) thread about making the recovery.conf parameters
>> be general GUCs. I don't actually remember the consensus there, but diong
>> that would certainly change how it's handled as well.
>
> It strikes me that keeping a password embedded in the conninfo from being
> exposed might be quite a bit harder/riskier if it became a GUC. Something
> to keep in mind if we ever try to make that change ...
Exposing it in memory for a long time is an issue even if we have a
new GUC-flag to obfuscate the value in some cases..
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haroon . | 2016-06-29 22:08:37 | Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-29 21:47:30 | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |