| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function |
| Date: | 2023-01-25 15:53:09 |
| Message-ID: | 2657600.1674661989@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I agree that the developer can use both GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL and
> GUC_EXPLAIN knowingly or unknowingly for a single GUC. If used by
> mistake then according to the existing code (without patch),
> GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL takes higher precedence whether it is marked first or
> last in the code. I am more convinced with this behaviour as I feel it
> is safer than exposing the information which the developer might not
> have intended.
Both of you are arguing as though GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL is a security
property. It is not, or at least it's so trivially bypassable
that it's useless to consider it one. All it is is a de-clutter
mechanism.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-01-25 16:01:14 | Re: More pgindent tweaks |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2023-01-25 15:51:33 | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |