Re: System username in pg_stat_activity

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:41:41PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:55 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2024-01-12 17:16:53 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:55 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 02:24:58PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > > > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we go the 2 fields way, then what about auth_identity and auth_method then?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is an updated patch based on this idea.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > + <row>
> > > > + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
> > > > + <structfield>auth_method</structfield> <type>text</type>
> > > > + </para>
> > > > + <para>
> > > > + The authentication method used for authenticating the connection, or
> > > > + NULL for background processes.
> > > > + </para></entry>
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if it would make sense to populate it for parallel workers too.
> > > > I think it's doable thanks to d951052, but I'm not sure it's worth it (one could
> > > > join based on the leader_pid though). OTOH that would be consistent with
> > > > how the SYSTEM_USER behaves with parallel workers (it's populated).
> > >
> > > I guess one could conceptually argue that "authentication happens int
> > > he leader". But we do populate it with the other user records, and
> > > it'd be weird if this one was excluded.
> > >
> > > The tricky thing is that pgstat_bestart() is called long before we
> > > deserialize the data. But from what I can tell it should be safe to
> > > change it per the attached? That should be AFAICT an extremely short
> > > window of time longer before we report it, not enough to matter.
> >
> > I don't like that one bit. The whole subsystem initialization dance already is
> > quite complicated, particularly for pgstat, we shouldn't make it more
> > complicated. Especially not when the initialization is moved quite a bit away
> > from all the other calls.
> >
> > Besides just that, I also don't think delaying visibility of the worker in
> > pg_stat_activity until parallel worker initialization has completed is good,
> > that's not all cheap work.
> >
> >
> > Maybe I am missing something, but why aren't we just getting the value from
> > the leader's entry, instead of copying it?

Good point!

> The answer to that would be "because I didn't think of it" :)

I'm in the same boat ;-)

> Were you thinking of something like the attached?

Doing it that way looks good to me.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com