Re: BUG #16279: Permissions doc incorrect for pg_buffercache
| От | Philip Semanchuk |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #16279: Permissions doc incorrect for pg_buffercache |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 6BCF9107-2559-495E-80B8-346921900796@americanefficient.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: BUG #16279: Permissions doc incorrect for pg_buffercache (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: BUG #16279: Permissions doc incorrect for pg_buffercache
|
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Philip Semanchuk <philip@americanefficient.com> writes: >> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org> wrote: >>> You are right, in contrib/pg_buffercache/pg_buffercache--1.2--1.3.sql we have >>> GRANT EXECUTE ON FUNCTION pg_buffercache_pages() TO pg_monitor; >>> GRANT SELECT ON pg_buffercache TO pg_monitor; >>> Not pg_read_all_stats. I'm not sure: we need change the extension or fix the documentation? I think pg_read_all_statswould be more appropriate, but we need bump the extension version. > >> Thanks for exploring and confirming! I agree that pg_read_all_stats would be more appropriate. > > Looking at the original discussion, it seems clear that the choice of > pg_monitor was intentional; see in particular > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BOCxowV7eL-DS1Hr-h5N7Tr8Gvn5VGW%2B%2BYJ2yo6wMN9H3n9Gg%40mail.gmail.com > > So I think the code is correct and the documentation is a typo. > That's a much easier answer to back-patch, as well. Sounds good to me. Thanks for the context! Cheers Philip
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: