Greetings, * Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote: > On 10/8/21, 12:01 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy" > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we can remove the below revoke statements from > > system_views.sql and place the checks shown at (2) in the underlying > > functions pg_get_shmem_allocations, pg_get_backend_memory_contexts, > > also in pg_log_backend_memory_contexts. > > > > REVOKE ALL ON pg_shmem_allocations FROM PUBLIC; > > REVOKE EXECUTE ON FUNCTION pg_get_shmem_allocations() FROM PUBLIC; > > REVOKE ALL ON pg_backend_memory_contexts FROM PUBLIC; > > REVOKE EXECUTE ON FUNCTION pg_get_backend_memory_contexts() FROM PUBLIC; > > > > Thoughts? > > This approach would add a restriction that a role must have SUPERUSER > or be a member of pg_monitor to use the views/functions. I think > there is value in allowing any role to use them (if granted the proper > privileges). In any case, users may already depend on being able to > do that. > > Instead, I think we should just grant privileges to pg_monitor. I've > attached a (basically untested) patch to demonstrate what I'm > thinking.
I'm not necessarily against this, but I will point out that we've stayed away, so far, from explicitly GRANT'ing privileges to pg_monitor itself, intending that to be a role which just combines privileges of certain other predefined roles together. I would think that these would fall under "pg_read_all_stats", in particular, which is explicitly documented as: Read all pg_stat_* views and use various statistics related extensions, even those normally visible only to superusers. (the last bit being particularly relevant in this case) Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
