Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2657600.1674661989@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function (Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: