Stephen Frost <> writes:
> * Tom Lane ( wrote:
>> How about we just say that the password in these old views always reads
>> out as '********' even when there is a password, and we invent new views
>> that carry real auth information?  (Hopefully in an extensible way.)

> I'd be alright with that approach, I'd just rather that any clients
> which actually want to read the password field be updated to look at the
> extensible and sensible base catalogs, and not some hacked up array that
> we shoved into that field.

Yeah, I'm good with that.  I just don't think the breakage needs to extend
to clients that aren't trying to read auth-related information.

BTW, if we haven't learned this lesson by now: I'm pretty sure that every
single one of these views is an attempt to emulate what *used* to be the
real base catalog, in some previous release.  Maybe we should stop
expecting clients to read the real catalog, ever, in favor of a sanitized
view?  Although I don't know exactly what that would lead to in terms of
what we'd expose that's different from what the base catalog is.  But it's
worth thinking about whether there is a way to avoid having this same
discussion again in five or ten years.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to