Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Eric B. Ridge <e...@tcdi.com> wrote:
>> I've been following this thread closely and haven't seen mention of
>> including the setting as part of the process name, so a 'ps' (on Unix) would
>> display it. Thoughts?
> Isn't that cluttered enough already?
Given the security arguments going on in other threads, it occurs to
me that putting app names into ps output could be considered positively
undesirable --- you could not put anything into the name that you'd not
want exposed to everyone on the server machine. Of course, since we're
exposing user and database names there anyhow, I'm not sure that this
argument carries much weight. But I think it's not totally clear what
people might choose to use the appname for, so we ought to consider
the possibility that there's some somewhat-sensitive info in it.
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
