-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/02/2015 05:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> But I'm not sure I like the idea of adding a server dependency on
>> the ability to exec pg_controldata. That seems like it could be
>> unreliable at best, and a security vulnerability at worst.
>
> I hadn't been paying attention --- the proposed patch actually
> depends on exec'ing pg_controldata? That's horrid! There is no
> expectation that that's installed.
No it doesn't. I'm confused :-/
Joe
- --
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=OAms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
