On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote: >>> Even there seems to be ongoing discussions on changing version number >>> while in the beta period (and which definitely requires initdb). Why >>> not changing system catalog during beta?:-) > >> I am not directly against that to be honest, but I'd expect Tom's >> wraith showing up soon on this thread just by saying that. In the two >> last releases, catalog bumps before beta2 because there were no other >> choice. This issue is not really critical, just a stupid miss from me, >> and we can live with this mistake as well. > > Since pg_stat_wal_receiver is new in 9.6, it seems to me that it'd be > wise to try to get it right the first time. And it's not like we are > going to get to beta3 without another initdb --- we already know the > partial-aggregate design is broken and needs some more catalog changes.
Amen. That's a sufficient argument to slip this one into 9.6 then. > What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a > good idea. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security > implications of exposing primary_conninfo --- might it not contain a > password, for example? Yes it could, as a connection string, but we make the information of this view only visible to superusers. For the others, that's just NULL. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
