On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:15:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 05:39:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> On the other hand, the very same thing could be said of database names
> >> and role names, yet we have never worried much about whether those were
> >> encoding-safe when viewed from databases with different encodings, nor
> >> have there been many complaints about the theoretical unsafety. So maybe
> >> this is just overly anal-retentive and we should drop the restriction,
> >> or at least pass through data that doesn't appear to be invalidly
> >> encoded.
>
> > I think the issue is that role and database names are controlled by
> > privileged users, while application_name is not.
>
> That's certainly an argument against a completely laissez-faire approach,
> but if we filtered invalidly-encoded data on the reading side, it seems
> like we would be in good enough shape.
Yes, if we want to filter, sure. I thought we were not 100% able to
filter, but I guess if it safe, we can do it.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee