On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Harold Giménez (har...@heroku.com) wrote: >> Definitely agree with you. This is just an example of how running >> monitoring as superuser is not necessarily the worst thing, and there >> are other reasons to do it already. > > It's a horrible thing and that isn't a good reason- if my database isn't > accepting connections, I probably don't care one bit how bloated a table > is. Indeed, I care *more* that I'm out of connections and would want to > know that ASAP.
This is a separate topic, but in such a case I'd want to know that I've reached max_connections, which may not be a problem if I just don't need any more connections, but I still need something connecting to make sure the service is available at all and can respond to simple SELECT 1 queries and a myriad of other things you'd want to keep track of. > > That said, I'm not against the general idea that the 'reserved' > connections be opened up to roles beyond superuser (or have some kind of > priority system, etc), but that's an independent concern and should not > be a justification for making monitoring require superuser privs. +1 -Harold -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
