Dave Page <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1. The patch prevents non-superusers from seeing other users'
>> application names in pg_stat_activity. This seems at best pretty
>> debatable to me. Yes, it supports usages in which you want to put
>> security-sensitive information into the appname, but at the cost of
>> disabling (perfectly reasonable) usages where you don't. If we made
>> the app name universally visible, people simply wouldn't put security
>> sensitive info in it, the same as they don't put it on the command line.
>> Should we change this?
> Uh, yeah, I guess. That wasn't a concious decision, more a copy n
> paste inherited 'feature'.
OK. Everybody seems to agree it should not be hidden, so I'll go change
that.
>> 2. I am wondering if we should mark application_name as
>> GUC_NO_RESET_ALL.
> I think we should use GUC_NO_RESET_ALL.
I agree with you, but it seems we have at least as many votes to not do
that. Any other votes out there?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
