On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On 8/25/15 11:32 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> 1.) pg_controldata() function and pg_controldata view added > > I don't think dumping out whatever pg_controldata happens to print as a > bunch of text fields is very sophisticated. We have functionality to > compute with WAL positions, for example, and they won't be of much use > if this is going to be all text. > > Also, the GUC settings tracked in pg_control can already be viewed using > normal mechanisms, so we don't need a second way to see them. > > The fact that some of this is stored in pg_control and some is not is > really an implementation detail. We should be thinking of ways to > expose specific useful information in useful ways, not just dump out > everything we can find. Ultimately, I think we would like to move away > from people parsing textual pg_controldata output, but this proposal is > not moving very far in that direction.
The nice thing about dumping the information as text is that you can return every value in the same universal format: text. There's a lot to like about that. But I'm not sure I like the idea of adding a server dependency on the ability to exec pg_controldata. That seems like it could be unreliable at best, and a security vulnerability at worst. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
