Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions
Date: 2015-08-26 14:35:25
Message-ID: 20150826143524.GG3685@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
> On 08/26/2015 06:33 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
> >> Issues needing comment: a.) Which items need hiding from
> >> non-superusers and should the value be redacted or the entire
> >> result set row be suppressed?
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that we need to at least redact it and that what
> > we should do is simply suppress the entire result set until we
> > provide a way for administrators to manage who can access it (eg:
> > default roles, this one would fall under 'pg_monitor', imo).
>
> Whatever it is it would have to be available during initdb. And in any
> case I'm no closer to knowing which rows to hide/redact/suppress other
> than WAL position. Possibly the thing to do for now would be to revoke
> public from these?

That was my thinking- revoke public from them. The default roles, based
on the last patch anyway, are available at initdb time and when
system_views.sql is run.

Thanks!

Stehpen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-08-26 15:44:26 Re: psql - better support pipe line
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2015-08-26 14:33:46 Re: 9.5 release notes