Hi
Apologies for the delayed response, was caught up in a minor life diversion
over the past couple of weeks.
2022年5月21日(土) 12:29 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>:
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 04:08:37PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > LGTM
>
> Indeed, it is a good idea to add this information. Will apply and
> backpatch accordingly.
Thanks!
2022年5月30日(月) 11:34 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>:
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 06:10:31AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed this one earlier. I'm okay with something along those
> > lines. I'm still trying to think of ways to make the last part a little
> > clearer, but I don't have any ideas beyond what we've discussed upthread.
>
> Okay. I have used the wording of upthread then. Thanks!
A little late to the party, but as an alternative suggestion for the last
part:
"... and users who either own the session being reported on, or who have
privileges of the role to which the session belongs,"
so the whole sentence would read:
Note that even when enabled, this information is only visible to superusers,
roles with privileges of the pg_read_all_stats role, and users who either own
the session being reported on or who have privileges of the role to which the
session belongs, so it should not represent a security risk.
or with some parentheses to break it up a little:
Note that even when enabled, this information is only visible to superusers,
roles with privileges of the pg_read_all_stats role, and users who either own
the session being reported on (or who have privileges of the role to which the
session belongs), so it should not represent a security risk.
I'm not sure if it really improves on the latest committed change, so just a
suggestion.
Regards
Ian Barwick
