Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostg...@gmail.com> writes:
> I agree that the developer can use both GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL and
> GUC_EXPLAIN knowingly or unknowingly for a single GUC. If used by
> mistake then according to the existing code (without patch),
> GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL takes higher precedence whether it is marked first or
> last in the code. I am more convinced with this behaviour as I feel it
> is safer than exposing the information which the developer might not
> have intended.
Both of you are arguing as though GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL is a security
property. It is not, or at least it's so trivially bypassable
that it's useless to consider it one. All it is is a de-clutter
mechanism.
regards, tom lane
