Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> If you want control over visibility of application_name, it should be >> done with a column privilige granted to a system role, or something like >> that - so the ability to see it can be given to "public" on default >> (thus not breaking BC) and if it's revoked from "public", given to roles >> that need to see it.
> I agree with this- individuals should be able to control access to this > information for their databases/clusters. I think that'd be much more complexity than the case justifies. The argument that application_name might contain sensitive information seems ludicrously weak to me: whatever a client is exposing as application_name is its own darn choice. If you don't like it, go fix the client. If there is some client library that sets application_name without allowing the choice to be overridden, then that's a problem with that library, not with the server's behavior. 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