| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Added columns to pg_stat_activity |
| Date: | 2005-05-07 15:02:34 |
| Message-ID: | 2653.1115478154@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> - Is the backend startup time sensitive information? Considering this
> information is available via ps(1), perhaps it would be better to allow
> any user to see any backend's startup time, rather than providing a
> false sense of security.
Remote database users don't have access to ps(1). I think that hiding
the startup time is reasonable.
> - We return (NULL, -1) for the client address/port if connected via a
> unix domain socket, and (NULL, NULL) for the address/port if the
> selecting user isn't a superuser / the owner of that client connection.
> It seems a little ugly to return NULL for the address in both cases,
> since the same value is used for two completely different meanings. Not
> sure of a better convention, though -- just idly complaining :)
Perhaps 0.0.0.0/0 or some such for the address in the unix domain case?
Not sure that this is an improvement over NULL though.
Other comments seem on-target to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-07 15:04:53 | Re: Added columns to pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-05-07 14:35:10 | Re: Added columns to pg_stat_activity |