Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function

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: 2023-01-27 17:14:22
Message-ID: 3385177.1674839662@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:
>> 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.

> Understood. If that is the case, then I am ok with the patch.

Pushed v4, then.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2023-01-27 17:23:20 Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump
Previous Message João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho 2023-01-27 17:05:09 Optimizing PostgreSQL with LLVM's PGO+LTO