Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 15:56:15 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, michael@paquier.xyz,
	gurjeet@singh.im, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Unprivileged user can induce crash by using an SUSET param in
 PGOPTIONS
Message-ID: <20220722225615.GC3998906@nathanxps13>
References: 
 <CABwTF4U9v4u3L2GWU6ZVxK-6NtvEMarrgAj2Vq8=wE_g1Tkncw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABwTF4WXCbjEpVRq+G+MZeJEXU=2evYMb_DVdzXpWap5cczkcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Ytn2ssEKdzPFM3Vf@paquier.xyz>
 <20220722.151600.1094104349120879204.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <729330.1658516182@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220722223359.GB3998906@nathanxps13>
 <763512.1658529844@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <763512.1658529844@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220722225615.GC3998906%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 06:44:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another idea is to add a "bool interactive" parameter to InitPostgres,
> thereby shoving the issue out to the call sites.  Still wouldn't
> expose the am_walsender angle, but conceivably it'd be more
> future-proof anyway?

I hesitated to suggest this exactly because of the WAL sender problem, but
it does seem slightly more future-proof, so +1 for this approach.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com