On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> There was also that (old) thread about making the recovery.conf parameters
>> be general GUCs. I don't actually remember the consensus there, but diong
>> that would certainly change how it's handled as well.
>
> It strikes me that keeping a password embedded in the conninfo from being
> exposed might be quite a bit harder/riskier if it became a GUC. Something
> to keep in mind if we ever try to make that change ...
Exposing it in memory for a long time is an issue even if we have a
new GUC-flag to obfuscate the value in some cases..
--
Michael
