"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that "a random number"
>> would offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which
>> is guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried
>> about.
> Well, in the post I cited, it was you who argued that the PID was a
> bad choice, suggested a random number, and stated "That would have a
> substantially lower collision probability than PID, if the number
> generation process were well designed; and it wouldn't risk exposing
> anything sensitive in the ping response."
Hmm. I don't remember why we'd think that the postmaster PID was
sensitive information ... but if you take that as true, then yeah
it couldn't be included in a pg_ping response.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
