From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: docs: mention "pg_read_all_stats" in "track_activities" description |
Date: | 2022-05-22 23:53:24 |
Message-ID: | YorM9Kv4bFVBoCsI@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 01:26:08PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Yeah, this crossed my mind. I thought that "superusers, roles with
> privileges of the pg_read_all_stats_role, roles with privileges of the user
> owning the session being reported on, and the user owning the session being
> reported on" might be too long-winded and redundant. But I see your point
> that it might be a bit confusing. Perhaps it could be trimmed down to
> something like this:
>
> ... superusers, roles with privileges of the pg_read_all_stats role,
> and roles with privileges of the user owning the session being reported
> on (including the session owner).
Yeah, that sounds better to me. monitoring.sgml has a different way
of wording what looks like the same thing for pg_stat_xact_*_tables:
"Ordinary users can only see all the information about their own
sessions (sessions belonging to a role that they are a member of)".
So you could say instead something like: this information is only
visible to superusers, roles with privileges of the pg_read_all_stats
role, and the user owning the sessionS being reported on (including
sessions belonging to a role that they are a member of).
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-05-23 00:10:01 | Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler? |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-05-22 23:26:06 | ccache, MSVC, and meson |