On 21.02.25 17:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I don't think this is such a terrible kluge. I think it's different from
> the server log case, which after all requires access to the server file
> system to exploit.
To me, the mechanism by which this patch works is completely nonobvious
and coincidental, and it might get broken by unrelated changes.
I think a possible, more robust approach would be to put a field, say,
security_sensitive into DefElem (or maybe a higher node, maybe even
Query), and drive decisions from that.
