On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/19 Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There are some log parser's and analysers. So people use reduced log
>>> often. The reductions rules should be based on application name. Why
>>> not? And when somebody modifies to appliacation name, then these logs
>>> finish in '/dev/null.
>>
>> So if your insecure app worries you, just don't use %a in the log
>> prefix, or ignore the column in the CSV logs.
>
> I'll know so %a is insecure, but what other users? Every live
> application is potencially insecure. I agree, so this value is useful
> for debuging, but with proposed features the value is diskutable.
%a is not 'insecure'. It's user-configurable. There's a difference.
If you don't trust your application or your users not to change the
application name, then don't rely on it in your logs or stats. For
other users that do trust their app and don't expect their users to be
going out of their way to mislead the DBA, this can be a useful
feature, as it's proven to be for others that have used the equivalent
facilities in other DBMSs.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
