Re: POC: Carefully exposing information without authentication

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: POC: Carefully exposing information without authentication
Date: 2026-01-09 14:15:48
Message-ID: CAKAnmm+-+2aZiK-wtwSCEpfOJbU7-PnwofByhr0F_XQB4wUJNw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 8:56 AM Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:

> 1. Add a new field to the PGconn structure

This kind of defeats one of the major strengths of this patch, which is
allowing systems that don't speak the protocol to get at this information.

> Regarding configuration, I'd prefer a single GUC. The value can be a
> comma-separated list of keywords, each representing particular piece of
> information to be exposed.
>

Yes, I could see some advantages to that, although I still like the
simplicity of separate boolean values. I've no strong feelings either way.
Let's see if others weigh in.

Thanks for looking over this patch!

Cheers,
Greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2026-01-09 14:20:54 Re: Speed up COPY FROM text/CSV parsing using SIMD
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2026-01-09 13:56:38 Re: POC: Carefully exposing information without authentication