On 3/18/19 3:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2019-02-28 00:03, Joe Conway wrote: >> What if we provided an option to redact all client messages (leaving >> logged messages as-is). Separately we could provide a GUC to force all >> functions to be resolved as leakproof. Depending on your requirements, >> having both options turned on could be perfectly acceptable. > > There are two commit fest entries for this thread, one in Pierre's name > and one in yours. Is your entry for the error message redacting > functionality? I think that approach has been found not to actually > satisfy the leakproofness criteria.
It is a matter of opinion with regard to what the criteria actually is, and when it ought to apply. But in any case the clear consensus was against me, so I guess I'll assume "my patch was rejected by PostgreSQL all I got was this tee shirt" (...I know I have one that says something like that somewhere...) ;-) I have no idea what the other entry is all about as I have not had the time to look. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
