Re: docs: mention "pg_read_all_stats" in "track_activities" description

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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