Re: Exposure related to GUC value of ssl_passphrase_command

On 2020-02-13 04:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:28:05AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> I think it is reasonable.
> 
> Indeed, that makes sense to me as well.  I am adding Peter Eisentraut
> in CC as the author/committer of 8a3d942 to comment on that.

I'm OK with changing that.

>> By the way, I'm not sure the criteria of setting a GUC variable as
>> GUC_SUPERUSER_ONLY, but for example, ssl_max/min_protocol_version,
>> dynamic_library_path, log_directory, krb_server_keyfile,
>> data_directory and config_file are GUC_SUPERUSER_ONLY. So, it seems to
>> me very strange that ssl_*_file are not. Don't we need to mark them
>> maybe and some of the other ssl_* as the same?
> 
> This should be a separate discussion IMO.  Perhaps there is a point in
> softening or hardening some of them.

I think some of this makes sense, and we should have a discussion about it.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services