Fix permissions check on pg_stat_get_wal_senders

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.
-- 
Michael

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

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