| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Allow pg_signal_backend members to use pg_log_backend_memory_stats(). |
| Date: | 2021-10-25 23:28:13 |
| Message-ID: | c70b496287118571efd1f7391430d70c56a71da9.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2021-10-25 at 14:30 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't get the reasoning behind the "except ..." logic. What does
> this
> actually protect against? A reasonable use case for this feature is
> is to
> monitor memory usage of all backends, and this restriction practially
> requires
> to still use a security definer function.
Nathan brought it up -- more as a question than a request, so perhaps
it's not necessary. I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I
included it to be conservative (easier to relax a privilege than to
tighten one).
I can cut out the in-function check entirely if there's no objection.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
[1] https://postgr.es/m/33F34F0C-BB16-48DE-B125-95D340A54AE8@amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-10-25 23:39:35 | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-10-25 23:12:56 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |