Re: Application name patch - v2

2009/10/19 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>
>
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> 2009/10/19 Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's not safe.
>>>> Maybe only super user can do it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That'll render it pretty useless, as most applications wouldn't then
>>> be able to set/reset it when it makes sense to do so.
>>>
>>
>> But application can do it simply via connection string, no? Mostly
>> applications has connection string in configuration, so I don't see
>> problem there. And if I would to allow access, then I could to wrap
>> setting to security definer function.
>>
>> I see this as security hole. It allows special SQL injection.
>>
>>
>
>
> How is it any more a security hole than any other setting that the user can
> alter with an arbitrary string value (e.g. custom options)?
>

Others GUC has not important role in logs. It's similar as possibility
to change client IP address.

> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
>