Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurj...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> SQL access is frequently more convenient, though. Although maybe now that
>> we've made recovery.conf use the GUC lexer we oughta continue in that vein
>> and expose those parameters as PGC_INTERNAL GUCs rather than inventing a new
>> function for it...
> +1 for SQL access, but exposing it via pg_settings opens up the security
> problem as there might be sensitive info in those GUCs.
IIRC we do have a GUC property that hides the value from non-superusers,
so we could easily have a GUC that is equivalent to the proposed
pg_primary_conninfo function. Of course this does nothing for my
objections to the function. Also, I'm not sure how we'd deal with the
state-dependency aspect of it (ie, value changes once you exit recovery
mode).
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
