Re: pg_primary_conninfo - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gurjeet Singh
Subject Re: pg_primary_conninfo
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinuGqsoxsoL4eykBQX3fjvioOqX7qkb9KVGHuK1@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_primary_conninfo  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_primary_conninfo  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm still wondering what's the actual use-case for exposing this inside
> SQL.  Those with a legitimate need-to-know can look at the slave
> server's config files, no?

SQL access is frequently more convenient, though.  Although maybe now that we've made recovery.conf use the GUC lexer we oughta continue in that vein and expose those parameters as PGC_INTERNAL GUCs rather than inventing a new function for it...


+1 for SQL access, but exposing it via pg_settings opens up the security problem as there might be sensitive info in those GUCs.

Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com

singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Guillaume Lelarge
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_primary_conninfo
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO item for pg_ctl and server detection