* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-07-02 16:52:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > If there's interest in closing these holes, this might be a first
> >
> > I don't think such an isolated attempt buys us anything except maybe
> > unsatisfied users.
> >
> > I can see a benefit in allowing to restrict information about users and
> > such in other clusters, but changing stat_ssl seeems to be an
> > inconsequentially small problem on that path.
>
>
> We discussed earlier having a "monitoring" role or attribute or something
> like that, and I think this would be another case of that. We definitely
> want to go towards something like that, but that's not happening in 9.5...
Agreed, but if we make this visible to all in 9.5 then we're going to
have a tough time restricting it to just the monitoring role in 9.6, I'm
afraid...
We realize it's a problem, for my 2c, I'd rather not double-down on it
by providing more information which should really be limited to
privileged users.
Thanks,
Stephen