Fix permissions check on pg_stat_get_wal_senders
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t37917psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v3 (message #3), July 27, 2026 at 09:32 PM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t37917_3 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t37917_3 && git checkout t37917_3Patchset v3 (message #3) is on t37917_3
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: /messages/by-id/CA+OCxoyYxO+Jmzv2Micj4uAaQdAi6nq0w25BPQgLLxsrvTmREw@mail.gmail.com%5C
regards,
Feike Steenbergen
Attachments:
0001-Fix-permissions-check-on-pg_stat_get_wal_senders.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=0001-Fix-permissions-check-on-pg_stat_get_wal_senders.patchDownload+6-6
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: /messages/by-id/CA+OCxoyYxO+Jmzv2Micj4uAaQdAi6nq0w25BPQgLLxsrvTmREw@mail.gmail.com%5C
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.
--
MichaelOn 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
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
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