Re: Application name patch - v4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Application name patch - v4
Date
Msg-id 16638.1259515351@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Application name patch - v4  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
Responses Re: Application name patch - v4
List pgsql-hackers
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 1. The patch prevents non-superusers from seeing other users'
>> application names in pg_stat_activity. �This seems at best pretty
>> debatable to me. �Yes, it supports usages in which you want to put
>> security-sensitive information into the appname, but at the cost of
>> disabling (perfectly reasonable) usages where you don't. �If we made
>> the app name universally visible, people simply wouldn't put security
>> sensitive info in it, the same as they don't put it on the command line.
>> Should we change this?

> Uh, yeah, I guess. That wasn't a concious decision, more a copy n
> paste inherited 'feature'.

OK.  Everybody seems to agree it should not be hidden, so I'll go change
that.

>> 2. I am wondering if we should mark application_name as
>> GUC_NO_RESET_ALL.

> I think we should use GUC_NO_RESET_ALL.

I agree with you, but it seems we have at least as many votes to not do
that.  Any other votes out there?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: LDAP where DN does not include UID attribute
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: cvs chapters in our docs