On 3/18/19 3:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-02-28 00:03, Joe Conway wrote:
>> What if we provided an option to redact all client messages (leaving
>> logged messages as-is). Separately we could provide a GUC to force all
>> functions to be resolved as leakproof. Depending on your requirements,
>> having both options turned on could be perfectly acceptable.
>
> There are two commit fest entries for this thread, one in Pierre's name
> and one in yours. Is your entry for the error message redacting
> functionality? I think that approach has been found not to actually
> satisfy the leakproofness criteria.
It is a matter of opinion with regard to what the criteria actually is,
and when it ought to apply. But in any case the clear consensus was
against me, so I guess I'll assume "my patch was rejected by PostgreSQL
all I got was this tee shirt" (...I know I have one that says something
like that somewhere...) ;-)
I have no idea what the other entry is all about as I have not had the
time to look.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development