* Harold Giménez (harold@heroku.com) wrote:
> Definitely agree with you. This is just an example of how running
> monitoring as superuser is not necessarily the worst thing, and there
> are other reasons to do it already.
It's a horrible thing and that isn't a good reason- if my database isn't
accepting connections, I probably don't care one bit how bloated a table
is. Indeed, I care *more* that I'm out of connections and would want to
know that ASAP.
That said, I'm not against the general idea that the 'reserved'
connections be opened up to roles beyond superuser (or have some kind of
priority system, etc), but that's an independent concern and should not
be a justification for making monitoring require superuser privs.
Thanks,
Stephen
