| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Harold Giménez <harold(at)heroku(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users |
| Date: | 2014-01-28 19:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPgk23DZxHoZWOLYFO47pxR+cq-AF3f6w1Jz44rMuNgtw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Well maybe. Or we want this useful information at a finer granularity
> than "everyone or nobody" and given the choice we prefer to have it
> than not.
Anyways, I don't feel incredibly strongly about this. I think we
should default any user-data to being visible only that user as a
general principle but I also think a system predicated on data like
argv or application_name being kept private is pretty fragile and
should be avoided so I'm not super tense about additional ways these
things can leak. I feel like this is an example where -hackers has a
bit of a blind spot when it comes to smaller databases by users who
aren't expert DBAs and don't need a dedicated box.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-28 19:56:40 | Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2014-01-28 19:53:39 | Re: GSoC 2014 - mentors, students and admins |