Hi Apologies for the delayed response, was caught up in a minor life diversion over the past couple of weeks.
2022年5月21日(土) 12:29 Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz>: > > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 04:08:37PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > LGTM > > Indeed, it is a good idea to add this information. Will apply and > backpatch accordingly. Thanks! 2022年5月30日(月) 11:34 Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz>: > > On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 06:10:31AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > Sorry, I missed this one earlier. I'm okay with something along those > > lines. I'm still trying to think of ways to make the last part a little > > clearer, but I don't have any ideas beyond what we've discussed upthread. > > Okay. I have used the wording of upthread then. Thanks! A little late to the party, but as an alternative suggestion for the last part: "... and users who either own the session being reported on, or who have privileges of the role to which the session belongs," so the whole sentence would read: Note that even when enabled, this information is only visible to superusers, roles with privileges of the pg_read_all_stats role, and users who either own the session being reported on or who have privileges of the role to which the session belongs, so it should not represent a security risk. or with some parentheses to break it up a little: Note that even when enabled, this information is only visible to superusers, roles with privileges of the pg_read_all_stats role, and users who either own the session being reported on (or who have privileges of the role to which the session belongs), so it should not represent a security risk. I'm not sure if it really improves on the latest committed change, so just a suggestion. Regards Ian Barwick
