Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
[ scratches head... ] I thought the JDBC spec already said exactly
how one would set this. Why would we go to significant effort to
make it behave contrary to spec?
We certainly should allow it to be set as specified in the spec. The
only question is
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
(or whatever name we choose for this in place of PGAPPNAME.)
FWIW, I would prefer PGAPPNAME to PGAPPLICATIONNAME which is what
Dave has been using in his examples. The latter is too frickin
long, and the double N is a typo threat (I already
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
(or whatever name we choose for this in place of PGAPPNAME.)
FWIW, I would prefer PGAPPNAME to PGAPPLICATIONNAME which is what
Dave has been using in his examples. The latter is too frickin
long, and the double N is
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, I would prefer PGAPPNAME to PGAPPLICATIONNAME which is what
We don't usually use abbreviations, so how about PGCLIENTNAME or some such?
Not sure I believe that argument. Among the set of existing libpq
environment variables I
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, I would prefer PGAPPNAME to PGAPPLICATIONNAME which is what
We don't usually use abbreviations, so how about PGCLIENTNAME or some such?
Not sure I believe
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, I would prefer PGAPPNAME to PGAPPLICATIONNAME which is what
We don't usually use abbreviations, so how about PGCLIENTNAME or some such?
Not sure I believe that argument. Among the
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I also like PGAPPNAME better, for the same reasons as Tom.
:-). Have to admit, I've mistyped it a few times too.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I also like PGAPPNAME better, for the same reasons as Tom.
:-). Have to admit, I've mistyped it a few times too.
Well, it would seem we have consensus on that. :-)
I don't feel that the Java default issue
2009/10/20 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Robert Haas wrote:
I do agree with Peter's concerns about limiting the character set of the
name string, and maybe there should be some sort of length limit too.
I don't have a strong feeling about this. If limiting this to 7-bit
characters
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Massa, Harald Armin c...@ghum.de wrote:
Would'nt this also make sense for PostgreSQL? That is, when no environment
is set, and no SET-command is
2009/10/20 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Massa, Harald Armin c...@ghum.de wrote:
Would'nt this also make sense for PostgreSQL? That is, when no
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
2009/10/20 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
Yeah, and there's a similar API on *BSD I believe, but nothing standard.
Right, but it might be worth investigating using the API that's
available on the platform, if one is. It's a fairly simple operation
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
2009/10/20 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
Yeah, and there's a similar API on *BSD I believe, but nothing standard.
Right, but it might be worth investigating using the API that's
available on the platform, if one is. It's a fairly
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
It would be a seriously bad idea for this to behave one way on some
platforms and differently on others.
Why would that be so bad? On platforms that support getting argv[0],
you'd get mycoolapp in the application
2009/10/20 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
It would be a seriously bad idea for this to behave one way on some
platforms and differently on others.
Why would that be so bad? On platforms that support getting argv[0],
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
if your software is written to depend on the appname being set a
particular way
then you're not using for its intended purpose, I should think. Since
any client can set this to whatever they want, having the application
name as a default, rather than NULL
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Also, how many platforms can't we do this on? If we have BSD and
Windows covered already. on linux, I believe you can easily read it
out of /proc/self/cmdline, no?
Writing a pile of platform-specific code for this is simply insane from
a support
2009/10/20 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Also, how many platforms can't we do this on? If we have BSD and
Windows covered already. on linux, I believe you can easily read it
out of /proc/self/cmdline, no?
Writing a pile of platform-specific code for
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
2009/10/20 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
psql or java. The cases that are actually useful are the ones where
the application sets it. I don't think we should have a default at all
--- you don't set it, you don't get a name.
For psql, yes.
What
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:16:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Also, how many platforms can't we do this on? If we have BSD and
Windows covered already. on linux, I believe you can easily read it
out of /proc/self/cmdline, no?
Writing a pile of
daveg da...@sonic.net writes:
I'd like a default, especially for psql, to help identify interactive
sessions.
psql can certainly provide a default, and maybe even do something
actually useful like report the -f file it's running. The question here
is whether it is worth the trouble for libpq
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
For java, it doesn't even go through libpq, so it wouldn't be set
for it. And I'd expect the JDBC driver to set it based on Something
Reasonable (TM) that it can get the information about. After all,
this thing was listed in the JDBC spec somebody
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
For java, it doesn't even go through libpq, so it wouldn't be set
for it. And I'd expect the JDBC driver to set it based on Something
Reasonable (TM) that it can get the information about. After all,
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 12:58 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
I think that covers all the suggestions discussed over the last couple
of days, with the exception of the rejection of \n and similar
characters which I'm still not entirely convinced is worth the effort.
Any other opinions on that? Anything
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 12:58 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
I think that covers all the suggestions discussed over the last couple
of days, with the exception of the rejection of \n and similar
characters which I'm still not
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 12:58 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
I think that covers all the suggestions discussed over the last couple
of days, with the exception of the rejection of \n and
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's not safe.
Maybe only super user can do it?
That'll render it pretty useless, as most applications wouldn't then
be able to set/reset it when it makes sense to
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
So this would effectively allow any minimally authorized user to write
whatever they want into the log file whenever they want? Doesn't sound
very safe to me.
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's not safe.
Maybe only super user can do it?
That'll render it pretty useless, as most applications wouldn't then
be
2009/10/19 Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
So this would effectively allow any minimally authorized user to write
whatever they want
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's not safe.
Maybe only super user can do
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I dislike write access to app name guc for user too.
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's not safe.
Maybe only super user can do it?
That'll render it pretty useless, as
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Then we have to divide this value to two independent values like
application_name and application_state.
How does that make any difference? That just means we have two values,
at least one of which is still userset,
2009/10/19 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's not safe.
Maybe only super user can do
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Then we have to divide this value to two independent values like
application_name and application_state.
How does that make any difference? That just means we have two
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
There are some log parser's and analysers. So people use reduced log
often. The reductions rules should be based on application name. Why
not? And when somebody modifies to appliacation name, then these logs
finish
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
There are some log parser's and analysers. So people use reduced log
often. The reductions rules should be based on application name. Why
not? And when somebody modifies to
2009/10/19 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I dislike write access
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
There are some log parser's and analysers. So people use reduced log
often. The reductions
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
There are some log parser's and analysers. So
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
sure, you have to fix fulnerable application. But with some
unsophisticated using %a and using wrong tools, the people can be
blind and don't register an SQL injection attack.
If they're logging the statements
Updated patch attached, fixing a silly thinko.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
I believe the attached patch is ready for review at the next
commitfest. It does the following:
- Adds a userset GUC called application_name.
- Allows application_name to be
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 08:47 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 12:58 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
I think that covers all the suggestions discussed over the last couple
of days, with the exception of the
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
A user can do that anyway if query logging is turned on, but anyway,
what would you suggest - accept a-zA-Z0-9 and a few other choice
characters only, or just reject a handful (and if so, what)?
Well, either you make
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
sure, you have to fix fulnerable application. But with some
unsophisticated using %a and using wrong tools, the people can be
blind and don't register an SQL injection
2009/10/19 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
sure, you have to fix fulnerable application. But with some
unsophisticated using %a and using wrong tools, the people can
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
sure, you have to fix fulnerable application. But with some
unsophisticated using %a and
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
sure, you have to fix fulnerable application. But
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not practical. I'll log errors. Usually SQL injection generates
lot of errors. Loging all statements has not sense. What is difference
bad and good SQL statement.? Maybe multistatements are good candidates
for
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 01:00:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is not practical. I'll log errors. Usually SQL injection generates
lot of errors. Loging all statements has not sense. What is difference
bad and
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Others GUC has not important role in logs. It's similar as possibility
to change client IP address.
That doesn't even remotely answer the question. How is such a thing a vector
for an SQL injection attack, that does not apply to
2009/10/19 Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Others GUC has not important role in logs. It's similar as possibility
to change client IP address.
That doesn't even remotely answer the question. How is such a thing a vector
-- monthly_report monthly_process.py:524
select wev from foo;
This feature would be very handy, but not if it requires special permission
to use it.
Superuser permission could not be a problem. Simple security definer
function can do it.
Regards
Pavel
-dg
--
David Gould
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:39:58AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
Excuse me one moment whilst I pick myself up from the floor :-)
Heh!
Can you imagine what a maintenance nightmare that would soon become?
Only vaguely, and that's enough.
Please bear in mind that this feature is based on similar
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Superuser permission could not be a problem. Simple security definer
function can do it.
Then you've defeated the point of making it superuser-only.
I don't think that changing the app name deserves a warning, to be
perfectly honest. Notice
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I thing, so change of original name should generate warning.
Well, if other people think that's necessary, it's certainly possible.
I think Pavel's entire line of argument is
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
2009/10/19 Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
Or are you saying that it should not be possible for the client to
change the value after connecting? That limits the usefulness with
connection pools.
What I know,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Could you point to a reference for this? It could help the rest of us
see what you're aiming for even better :)
Sure. Here's a nice example from SQL Server as well as related doc links:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:39:58AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
Please bear in mind that this feature is based on similar features in
other DBMSs (and in fact, a feature in the JDBC spec)
Could you point to a reference for this? It could help the rest of us
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
Well, if other people think that's necessary, it's certainly possible.
I think Pavel's entire line of argument is utter nonsense. He's setting
up a straw man that has nothing to do with any actually likely use of
Sure. Here's a nice example from SQL Server as well as related doc links:
http://blog.benhall.me.uk/2007/10/sql-connection-application-name.html
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189770.aspx
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Massa, Harald Armin c...@ghum.de wrote:
Would'nt this also make sense for PostgreSQL? That is, when no environment
is set, and no SET-command is issued, that the application name becomes the
default?
That needs to be set by the application. As discussed
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
I do agree with Peter's concerns about limiting the character set of the
name string, and maybe there should be some sort of length limit too.
I was thinking we might just declare it of type 'name'..
'name'
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
I do agree with Peter's concerns about limiting the character set of the
name string, and maybe there should be some sort of length limit too.
I
2009/10/19 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Superuser permission could not be a problem. Simple security definer
function can do it.
Then you've defeated the point of making it superuser-only.
no. Because when I write security definer
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
2009/10/19 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Superuser permission could not be a problem. Simple security definer
function can do it.
Then you've defeated the point of making it
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I thing, so change of original name should generate warning.
Well, if other people think that's necessary,
David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Could you point to a reference for this? It could help the rest of
us
see what you're aiming for even better :)
Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
clientapplname varchar(30) column in sysprocesses table:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think Pavel's entire line of argument is utter nonsense.
+1. I can't even understand why we're still arguing about this.
Agreed. One premise of the whole concept was don't even think of
using it for
2009/10/19 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
2009/10/19 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Superuser permission could not be a problem. Simple security definer
function can do it.
Then
2009/10/19 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Massa, Harald Armin c...@ghum.de wrote:
Would'nt this also make sense for PostgreSQL? That is, when no environment
is set, and no SET-command is issued, that the application name becomes the
default?
That needs to be
Robert Haas wrote:
I do agree with Peter's concerns about limiting the character set of the
name string, and maybe there should be some sort of length limit too.
I don't have a strong feeling about this. If limiting this to 7-bit
characters solves some nasty encoding problems or
I believe the attached patch is ready for review at the next
commitfest. It does the following:
- Adds a userset GUC called application_name.
- Allows application_name to be reported in log_line_prefix using %a.
- Includes application_name in CSV logs.
- Displays application_name in the output of
75 matches
Mail list logo
