Re: Information of pg_stat_ssl visible to all users

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Information of pg_stat_ssl visible to all users
Date: 2015-07-06 13:48:50
Message-ID: 20150706134850.GM12131@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-07-02 16:52:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > If there's interest in closing these holes, this might be a first
> >
> > I don't think such an isolated attempt buys us anything except maybe
> > unsatisfied users.
> >
> > I can see a benefit in allowing to restrict information about users and
> > such in other clusters, but changing stat_ssl seeems to be an
> > inconsequentially small problem on that path.
>
>
> We discussed earlier having a "monitoring" role or attribute or something
> like that, and I think this would be another case of that. We definitely
> want to go towards something like that, but that's not happening in 9.5...

Agreed, but if we make this visible to all in 9.5 then we're going to
have a tough time restricting it to just the monitoring role in 9.6, I'm
afraid...

We realize it's a problem, for my 2c, I'd rather not double-down on it
by providing more information which should really be limited to
privileged users.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2015-07-06 13:53:07 Re: [PATCH v1] GSSAPI encryption support
Previous Message Jan de Visser 2015-07-06 13:46:33 Re: Idea: closing the loop for "pg_ctl reload"