On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On January 17, 2016 12:46:36 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > , but we surely do not want to give away >>checkpoint and recovery information. > > Why is that? A lot of that information is available anyway?
We are trying to hide away from non-superusers WAL-related information in system views and system function, that's my point to do the same here. For the data of pg_control, it seems to me that this can give away to any authorized users hints regarding the way Postgres is built, perhaps letting people know for example which Linux distribution is used and which flavor of Postgres is used (we already give away some information with version() but that's different than the libraries this is linking to), so an attacker may be able to take advantage of that to do attacks on potentially outdated packages? And I would think that many users are actually going to revoke the access of those functions to public if we are going to make them world-visible. It is easier as well to restrict things first, and then relax if necessary, than the opposite as well. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
