On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> wrote: > invalid input syntax for integer: "21' && 1=2)) Uni/**/ON > SEl/**/eCT 0x646665743166657274,0x646665743266657274, > 0x646665743366657274 -- "
Now that is choice. I wonder what specific database system that's targeting... > I just wonder if anybody thinks web apps, and therefore this > scenario, are common enough these days to maybe justify one > or two more GUCs with their own log_line_prefix escapes, such > as app_client_addr or app_user. Naturally they would only be > as reliable as the app setting them, and uninterpreted by > PostgreSQL itself, and so functionally no different from the > uninterpreted string already available as application_name. > The benefit is perhaps to be clearer than just overloading > application_name to carry two or three pieces of information > (and perhaps privacy, if you care about app user identities and > source IPs showing up in ps titles). > > Worth considering, or is application_name Good Enough? I mean, if there were a list of things that needed to propagated that was (1) lengthy and (2) universally agreed, then we'd probably want more than one field. But your list is pretty short, so I guess I don't see why you can't just join them together with a punctuation mark of your choice and call it good. I might be missing something, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers