On 08/07/2013 04:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 07:26:38AM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
huxm wrote
where there is a
newline(\n) in the name.
I can't imagine why you would want to use non-printing characters in a name,
especially a database name. Even if the hba.conf file was able to interpret
it (which it probably cannot but I do not know for certain) client
interfaces are likely to have problems as well. Most of these would not
think of interpolating a database identifier in that manner but instead
treat the name as a literal value. Even when line-continuations are allowed
they are often cosmetic in nature and the resultant newline is discarded
during the pre-execution phase of the command interpreter.
Arguably having a check constraint on the catalog to prohibit such a name
would be more useful than trying to make such a construct functional.
I'd guess in the immediate term the users accessing this database would need
to have "all" as their target and then you use role-based authorization to
limit which specific databases are accessible.
I suppose the cleanest solution would be to allow a \n or a backslash
for line continuation, but I don't think pg_hba.conf supports those.
It doesn't. I really think this comes into the category of "don't do
that!" The most we should do is document the pain that names with
embedded newlines can cause.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
