Thread: Fix permissions check on pg_stat_get_wal_senders
Fix permissions check on pg_stat_get_wal_senders Commit 25fff40798fc4ac11a241bfd9ab0c45c085e2212 introduced the possibility for the pg_read_all_stats to have access to all pg_stat_* views. In the discussion, the pg_stat_replication and pg_stat_wal_receiver views were also considered to be part of that, however pg_stat_get_wal_senders was somehow not part of that commit, that seems an oversight. 1: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BOCxoyYxO%2BJmzv2Micj4uAaQdAi6nq0w25BPQgLLxsrvTmREw%40mail.gmail.com\ regards, Feike Steenbergen
Attachment
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Feike Steenbergen <feikesteenbergen@gmail.com> wrote: > Fix permissions check on pg_stat_get_wal_senders > > Commit 25fff40798fc4ac11a241bfd9ab0c45c085e2212 introduced the > possibility for the pg_read_all_stats to have access to all pg_stat_* > views. > In the discussion, the pg_stat_replication and pg_stat_wal_receiver > views were also considered to be part of that, however > pg_stat_get_wal_senders was somehow not part of that commit, that > seems an oversight. > > 1: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BOCxoyYxO%2BJmzv2Micj4uAaQdAi6nq0w25BPQgLLxsrvTmREw%40mail.gmail.com\ Yes, that's a bug, albeit a minor one. - * Only superusers can see details. Other users only get the pid value - * to know whether it is a WAL receiver, but no details. + * Only superusers and members of pg_read_all_stats can see details. + * Other users only get the pid value to know it's a walsender, but no details. You mean a WAL receiver here, not a WAL sender. -- Michael
On 21 December 2017 at 14:11, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > You mean a WAL receiver here, not a WAL sender. Fixed, thanks
Attachment
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 07:49:34AM +0100, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
> On 21 December 2017 at 14:11, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You mean a WAL receiver here, not a WAL sender.
>
> Fixed, thanks
[nit]
/*
- * Only superusers can see details. Other users only get the pid value
+ * Only superusers and members of pg_read_all_stats can see details.
+ * Other users only get the pid value
* to know whether it is a WAL receiver, but no details.
*/
Incorrect comment format.
[/nit]
Committers run pgindent on each patch before committing anyway, and what
you are proposing here looks good to me, so I am marking that as ready for
committer. Simon, as the original committer of 25fff407, could you look
at what is proposed here?
--
Michael
Attachment
On 23 December 2017 at 10:56, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 07:49:34AM +0100, Feike Steenbergen wrote: >> On 21 December 2017 at 14:11, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> > You mean a WAL receiver here, not a WAL sender. >> >> Fixed, thanks > > [nit] > /* > - * Only superusers can see details. Other users only get the pid value > + * Only superusers and members of pg_read_all_stats can see details. > + * Other users only get the pid value > * to know whether it is a WAL receiver, but no details. > */ > > Incorrect comment format. > [/nit] > > Committers run pgindent on each patch before committing anyway, and what > you are proposing here looks good to me, so I am marking that as ready for > committer. Simon, as the original committer of 25fff407, could you look > at what is proposed here? Yup, I got this. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 5 January 2018 at 15:19, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Yup, I got this. I saw the commit in the master branch but not in the REL_10_STABLE branch, I'm totally not up-to-date with the backpatching process, but I was wondering if it still needs to be added to REL_10_STABLE regards, Feike
On 24 January 2018 at 13:15, Feike Steenbergen <feikesteenbergen@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 January 2018 at 15:19, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Yup, I got this. > > I saw the commit in the master branch but not in the REL_10_STABLE branch, > I'm totally not up-to-date with the backpatching process, but I was wondering > if it still needs to be added to REL_10_STABLE Yep, as the commit message said: "then later backpatch to 10". Will do. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services