Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Also, actually, I see no reason for the conninfo to be shown differently > regardless of a connection being already established. If we show the > conninfo that the server is trying to use, it might be easier to >

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > All, > > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> > > I have one question; why do we call the column

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

All, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > I have one question; why do we call the column "conn_info" instead of > > > "conninfo" which is basically used in other places?

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > > I have one question; why do we call the column "conn_info" instead of > > "conninfo" which is basically used in other places? "conninfo" is better to > > me. > > No real reason for one or the

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > I have one question; why do we call the column "conn_info" instead of > "conninfo" which is basically used in other places? "conninfo" is better to > me. No real reason for one or the other to be honest. If you want to

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier >>> wrote: >> >>> >>

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: > >> >> Okay, that argument I buy. >> >> >> >> I suppose this function/view should report no row at all

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > >> Okay, that argument I buy. > >> > >> I suppose this function/view should report no row at all if there is no > >> wal receiver connected, rather than a view with nulls. > > > > The

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Yeah, I know. Now my opinion regarding this view is that we should >>> show information about a

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> Yeah, I know. Now my opinion regarding this view is that we should >> show information about a currently-working WAL receiver, and that it >> has nothing to do with reporting information of

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera > >> wrote: > >> > Also, actually, I see no reason for the conninfo to be shown

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> > Also, actually, I see no reason for the conninfo to be shown differently >> > regardless of a

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Also, actually, I see no reason for the conninfo to be shown differently > > regardless of a connection being already established. If we show the > > conninfo that the server is

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Also, actually, I see no reason for the conninfo to be shown differently > regardless of a connection being already established. If we show the > conninfo that the server is trying to use, it might be easier to >

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > >> Fujii Masao wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier > >>>

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier >>> wrote: >>> > On Thu,

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> >> ISTM that we

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> ISTM that we will never be able to get out of this loop if walreceiver > >> fails to connect to the

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> (2) >>> +retry: >>> +SpinLockAcquire(>mutex);

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> (2) >> +retry: >> +SpinLockAcquire(>mutex); >> +if (!walrcv->ready_to_display) >> +{ >> +SpinLockRelease(>mutex);

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > >> I propose to push this patch, closing the open item, and you can rework > >> on top -- I suppose you would completely remove the original conninfo > >> from

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > (2) > +retry: > +SpinLockAcquire(>mutex); > +if (!walrcv->ready_to_display) > +{ > +SpinLockRelease(>mutex); > +CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); > +pg_usleep(1000); > +goto retry; > +

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> I propose to push this patch, closing the open item, and you can rework >> on top -- I suppose you would completely remove the original conninfo >> from shared memory and instead only

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> It strikes me that keeping a password embedded in the conninfo from being >> exposed might be quite a bit harder/riskier if it became a GUC. Something >> to keep in mind

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> There was also that (old) thread about making the recovery.conf parameters >> be general GUCs. I don't actually remember the consensus there, but diong >> that would certainly

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Magnus Hagander writes: > There was also that (old) thread about making the recovery.conf parameters > be general GUCs. I don't actually remember the consensus there, but diong > that would certainly change how it's handled as well. It strikes me that keeping a password

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > >> I propose to push this patch, closing the open item, and you can rework > >> on top -- I

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> I propose to push this patch, closing the open item, and you can rework >> on top -- I suppose you would completely remove the original conninfo >> from shared memory and instead only

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I propose to push this patch, closing the open item, and you can rework > on top -- I suppose you would completely remove the original conninfo > from shared memory and instead only copy the obfuscated version there > (and probably also remove the ready_to_display flag).

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Fujii Masao wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera > >> wrote: > >> > Michael Paquier wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Alvaro

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> > Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera > >> wrote: > > > >> > I have already edited the patch following some of these ideas.

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: > >> > I have already edited the patch following some of these ideas. Will >> > post a new version

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: > >> > I have already edited the patch following some of these ideas. Will >> > post a new version

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I have already edited the patch following some of these ideas. Will > > post a new version later. > > Cool, thanks. Here it is. I found it was annoying to maintain the function

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > >> I have been thinking more about that, and came up with the following >> idea... We do not want to link libpq directly to the server, so let's >> add a new routine to libpqwalreceiver

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier wrote: > I have been thinking more about that, and came up with the following > idea... We do not want to link libpq directly to the server, so let's > add a new routine to libpqwalreceiver that builds an obfuscated > connection string and let's have walreceiver.c save it in

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a > > >> good idea. In

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Noah Misch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 05:56:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > The new pg_stat_wal_receiver does not include primary_conninfo. > > Looking at that now, it looks almost stupid not to include it... > > Adding it now would require a catalog bump, so I am not sure if this > >

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 05:56:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > The new pg_stat_wal_receiver does not include primary_conninfo. > Looking at that now, it looks almost stupid not to include it... > Adding it now would require a catalog bump, so I am not sure if this > is acceptable at this stage

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > This connection string is stored in shared memory in WalRcvData, and > that's the case for a couple of releases now, so it has already a high > footprint, though I agree that making that available at SQL level >

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Ugh. I would certainly rather not have yet another special, hard-coded, > bit of logic that magically makes things available to a superuser when > it's not available to regular users. > What that results in is the need

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a > >> good idea. In particular, I'm concerned about

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 6/20/16 10:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a >>> good idea. In particular, I'm concerned

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 6/20/16 10:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a >> good idea. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security >> implications of exposing primary_conninfo ---

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On 6/20/16 10:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a good idea. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security implications of exposing primary_conninfo --- might it not contain a password, for example? That would have been my

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> What I would want to know is whether this specific change is actually a >> good idea. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security >> implications of

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> Even there seems to be ongoing discussions on changing version number >>> while in the

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> Even there seems to be ongoing discussions on changing version number >> while in the beta period (and which definitely requires initdb). Why >> not changing system

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> Thanks, this looks good. Could you please add it to the next commitfest >>> so that it doesn't get lost and also so I can do an official review of it? >> >> Yes, I just did that. That's too late for 9.6 anyway with

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

>> Thanks, this looks good. Could you please add it to the next commitfest >> so that it doesn't get lost and also so I can do an official review of it? > > Yes, I just did that. That's too late for 9.6 anyway with beta2 close by. Even there seems to be ongoing discussions on changing version

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 19/06/16 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >>> On 19/06/16 12:28, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On 19/06/16 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >> On 19/06/16 12:28, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier >>> Or in short the attached. >> >> The code looks good to me but why no

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On 19/06/16 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >> On 19/06/16 12:28, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier >>> Or in short the attached. >> >> The code looks good to me but why no

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 19/06/16 12:28, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier >> Or in short the attached. > > The code looks good to me but why no documentation? Because that's a long day... Thanks! Now

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On 19/06/16 12:28, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> The new pg_stat_wal_receiver does not include primary_conninfo. >> Looking at that now, it looks almost stupid not to include it... >> Adding it now would require a

Re: [HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > The new pg_stat_wal_receiver does not include primary_conninfo. > Looking at that now, it looks almost stupid not to include it... > Adding it now would require a catalog bump, so I am not sure if this > is

[HACKERS] primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Hi all, The new pg_stat_wal_receiver does not include primary_conninfo. Looking at that now, it looks almost stupid not to include it... Adding it now would require a catalog bump, so I am not sure if this is acceptable at this stage for 9.6... Regards, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers