From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Tightening up allowed custom GUC names
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 15:01:55 -0800
Message-ID: <20210209230155.GA551305@rfd.leadboat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <951335.1612910077@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <951335.1612910077@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 05:34:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now granting that the best answer is just to forbid these cases,
> there are still a couple of decisions about how extensive the
> prohibition ought to be:
>
> * We could forbid these characters only when you try to actually
> put such a GUC into pg_db_role_setting, and otherwise allow them.
> That seems like a weird nonorthogonal choice though, so I'd
> rather just forbid them period.
Agreed.
> * A case could be made for tightening things up a lot more, and not
> allowing anything that doesn't look like an identifier. I'm not
> pushing for that, as it seems more likely to break existing
> applications than the narrow restriction proposed here. But I could
> live with it if people prefer that way.
I'd prefer that. Characters like backslash, space, and double quote have
significant potential to reveal bugs, while having negligible application
beyond revealing bugs.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: noah@leadboat.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Tightening up allowed custom GUC names
In-Reply-To: <20210209230155.GA551305@rfd.leadboat.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox