Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4175732.1620329462@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2021-05-06 14:56:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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? > It does seem like it'd be good to group it in with something > else. There's nothing fitting 100% though. I'd probably vote for pg_read_all_data, considering that much of the concern about this has to do with the possibility of exposure of sensitive data. I'm not quite sure what the security expectations are for pg_monitor. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: