Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masao Fujii <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver
Date: 2016-06-21 03:06:15
Message-ID: 14471.1466478375@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 6/20/16 10:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a
>> good idea. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security
>> implications of exposing primary_conninfo --- might it not contain a
>> password, for example?

> That would have been my objection. This was also mentioned in the
> context of moving recovery.conf settings to postgresql.conf, because
> then the password would become visible in SHOW commands and the like.

> Alternatively or additionally, implement a way to strip passwords out of
> conninfo information. libpq already has information about which
> connection items are sensitive.

Yeah, I'd been wondering whether we could parse the conninfo string into
individual fields and then drop the password field. It's hard to see a
reason why this view needs to show passwords, since presumably everything
in it corresponds to successful connections --- if your password is wrong,
you aren't in it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2016-06-21 03:08:21 Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-06-21 03:01:50 Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit