On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:45:29PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Michael, this obviously didn't happen and instead we ended up releasing > 11.1 with your changes, but I don't feel like this issue is closed and > I'm a bit disappointed that there hasn't been any further responses or > discussions on this.
This issue is not closed. > I discussed this at length with David and Amit, both of whom have now > also commented on this issue, at PGConf.Eu, but still there hasn't been > a response from you. Is your thought here that your lack of response > should be taken as meaning I should simply revert your commit and then > commit your earlier patch to just add the param file? While we > typically take silence as acceptance, it's a bit different when it comes > to reverting someone else's change, at least to my mind. > > I'm happy to go ahead and make those changes if there's no disagreement > regarding it. Well, I did not have any express feeling to offer a response as it seems to me that the topic of how to handle things has not moved a iota to an agreement. From what I can see, there are still two school of thoughts: - Use a white list. Individuals which have expressed an interest on this approach, based on the status of this thread are myself, Kyotaro Horiguchi. And at least a third person which I think would prefer the white-list approach is Andres, but he did not reply directly to this thread. - Use a black list, which a least a set of three people have expressed an opinion about on this thread: Amit Kapila, David Steele and yourself. > Also, just to be clear, I don't intend this with any animosity and I > certainly understand if it just has fallen through the cracks or been > lost in the shuffle but I really don't like the implication put forward > that we're happy to not throw any kind of warning or notice about random > files showing up in the PG data directories. Don't worry about that! Thanks for trying to make this thread moving on. I am still a fan of the whitelist approach as there is no actual point in restricting what people can do with Postgres in terms of extensibility (relying on tablespace paths for storage plugin looks like an important thing to me, and we would close doors with a black list, causing warnings to be generated for basically everything which is not from heap). What worries me the most is actually the fact that we have not heard from the original authors of the pg_verify_checksums what they think on the matter and how we ought to do things, because their opinion is important. If there is a clear agreement for the direction to take, I am of course perfectly fine if the conclusion is the opposite of what I think, but a 3vs2, (3vs3 if I count Andres) is kind of hard to conclude that we have an actual agreement. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
