On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 13:08, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 09:51:33PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 01:01:17PM -0600, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > One of the main reasons there being to be easily able to transfer more state > > and give results other than just an exit code, no need to deal with parameter > > escaping etc. Which probably wouldn't matter as much to an SSL passphrase > > command, but still. > > I get the callback-is-easier issue with shared objects, but are we > expecting to pass in more information here than we do for > archive_command? I would think not. What I am saying is that if we > don't think passing things in works, we should fix all these external > commands, or something. I don't see why ssl_passphrase_command is > different, except that it is new.
Or is it related to _securely_passing something?
Yes
> Also, why was this patch posted without any discussion of these issues? > Shouldn't we ideally discuss the API first?
I wonder if every GUC that takes an OS command should allow a shared object to be specified --- maybe control that if the command string starts with a # or something.
