On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/02/2015 05:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> 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. >> >> I hadn't been paying attention --- the proposed patch actually >> depends on exec'ing pg_controldata? That's horrid! There is no >> expectation that that's installed. > > No it doesn't. I'm confused :-/
No, I'm confused. Sorry. Somehow I misread your patch. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. -- 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
