Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date
Msg-id 4174276.1620327369@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:30 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> TBH, I'm leaning to the position that this should be superuser
>> only.

> I agree that ordinary users shouldn't be able to trigger it, but I
> think it should be restricted to some predefined role, new or
> existing, rather than to superuser. I see no reason not to let
> individual users decide what risks they want to take.

If we think it's worth having a predefined role for, OK.  However,
I don't like the future I see us heading towards where there are
hundreds of random predefined roles.  Is there an existing role
that it'd be reasonable to attach this ability to?

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: use `proc->pgxactoff` as the value of `index` in `ProcArrayRemove()`