On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 3:06 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:57 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:44 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1 for the idea. I did not read the complete patch but while reading
> > > through the patch, I noticed that you using elevel as LOG for printing
> > > the stack trace. But I think the backend whose pid you have passed,
> > > the connected client to that backend might not have superuser
> > > privileges and if you use elevel LOG then that message will be sent to
> > > that connected client as well and I don't think that is secure. So
> > > can we use LOG_SERVER_ONLY so that we can prevent
> > > it from sending to the client.
> >
> > True, we should use LOG_SERVER_ONLY and not send any logs to the client.
>
> I further tend to think that, is it correct to log queries with LOG
> level when log_statement GUC is set? Or should it also be
> LOG_SERVER_ONLY?
>
> /* Log immediately if dictated by log_statement */
> if (check_log_statement(parsetree_list))
> {
> ereport(LOG,
> (errmsg("statement: %s", query_string),
> errhidestmt(true),
> errdetail_execute(parsetree_list)));
>
What is your argument behind logging it with LOG? I mean we are
sending the signal to all the backend and some backend might have the
client who is not connected as a superuser so sending the plan to
those clients is not a good idea from a security perspective.
Anyways, LOG_SERVER_ONLY is not an exposed logging level it is used
for an internal purpose. So IMHO it should be logged with
LOG_SERVER_ONLY level.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
