| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Information of pg_stat_ssl visible to all users |
| Date: | 2015-09-01 02:37:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRQ4rsGoN7ddf0yeDe6K9kkU1Ezn_4xZmdQ28Cz8ji+4w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 8/31/15 9:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I'm just saying that we should strive to behave at least somewhat
>> consistently, and change everything at once, not piecemal. Because the
>> latter will not decrease the pain of migrating to a new model in a
>> relevant way while making the system harder to understand.
>
> Well, we already hide a fair chunk of information from pg_stat_activity
> from unprivileged users, including everything related to the connection
> origin of other users. So from that precedent, the entire SSL
> information ought to be considered privileged.
That being said we may want as well to bite the bullet and to hide
more information in pg_stat_activity, like datname, usename and
application_name, or simply hide completely those tuples for
non-privileged users.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-09-01 02:39:12 | remove wal_level archive |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-09-01 02:23:58 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |