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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to