Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: reset all update

From: Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reset all update
Date: 2001-06-13 14:36:06
Message-ID: 20010613163606.B22669@l-t.ee (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> > [ reset all patch ]
> 
> Hmm, you seem to have overlapped with some changes I was just making.
> The original version of your patch still hasn't arrived here :-(
> so I don't know what you intended to do.  But you might want to check
> what I just committed.

My idea was that RESET should not check permissions, all perm
check are in set_*.  vars that are not SET-able by user, will
have *variable == default_val, so reset can safely go through
all of them, and not mess anything up.  But this means the
default_val must be 'right'.  Therefore I made also cmdline args go
through GUC, so that they get right 'defaults'.  As an added
bonus, this means that all var range checks are in one place.

Now I do not know what to do.  How to handle permissions is
your call.  I still think that GUCifying cmdline is Good, because
of the var checks.  Also, when in future there will be 'set
hooks' which eg. (re)allocate memory, it is good when all var
changes go through one place.  Should I resubmit the patch, now
against your changes?  Do you still think perm check in reset is
necessary?

-- 
marko


In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-13 14:39:21
Subject: Re: reset all update
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-13 14:08:37
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group