On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 05:47:36PM +0200, Jim Jones wrote: > On 08/09/2026 02:33, shihao zhong wrote: > pg_stat_get_backend_wal, pg_stat_get_backend_io, and > pg_stat_get_backend_lock also lack this check. Out of scope here, but > perhaps worth a followup patch?
Hmm, yeah. You have a consistency point here. None of these stats are critical in any way, but cleaning up all that on HEAD shoulds like a good thing to do, while we are on it. Let's group all that in a single patch. All these functions treat similar backend-level stats. > I believe the tests should also cover a non-superuser with explicit > pg_read_all_stats permission (see 0002 attached) Yep. Let's make that also cheaper: one role for all of the functions. > The C tuple descriptor still says "subxact_overflow" -- most likely the > source of the confusion. > > TupleDescInitEntry(tupdesc, (AttrNumber) 2, "subxact_overflow", > BOOLOID, -1, 0); Ahah, nice catch. The value that primes (reported back to the user) is not the one set in the TupleDesc but the one defined in pg_proc.dat. Could you group all your findings in a single patch? The doc entry needs to be at least backpatched, mentioning "overflow" instead of "overflowed" is not correct. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
