On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 05:05, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2019-10-11 16:30:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> But, if it does need to be changed, it seems like a terrible idea to > >> allow it to be done via SQL. Otherwise, the user can break the driver > >> by using SQL to set the list to something that the driver's not > >> expecting, and there's nothing the driver can do to prevent it. > > > Uhm. The driver can just ignore GUCs it's not interested in, like our > > docs have told them for a long time? > > Certainly it should do that; but the problematic case is where it > *doesn't* get told about something it's depending on knowing about. > > regards, tom lane >
Here's an updated patch that addresses some of Andres' concerns specifically does not use strtok. As far as addressing connection poolers goes; one thought is to use the cancellation key to "validate" the SQL. This should be known to all drivers and pool implementations. Thoughts ? Dave
0001-Add-a-STARTUP-packet-option-to-set-GUC_REPORT-on-GUC.patch
Description: Binary data
