Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Harold Giménez <harold(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users
Date: 2014-01-22 00:38:36
Message-ID: 20140122003836.GR31026@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Harold Giménez (harold(at)heroku(dot)com) wrote:
> Definitely agree with you. This is just an example of how running
> monitoring as superuser is not necessarily the worst thing, and there
> are other reasons to do it already.

It's a horrible thing and that isn't a good reason- if my database isn't
accepting connections, I probably don't care one bit how bloated a table
is. Indeed, I care *more* that I'm out of connections and would want to
know that ASAP.

That said, I'm not against the general idea that the 'reserved'
connections be opened up to roles beyond superuser (or have some kind of
priority system, etc), but that's an independent concern and should not
be a justification for making monitoring require superuser privs.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Harold Giménez 2014-01-22 00:44:07 Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-01-22 00:34:49 Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)