| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Possible regression setting GUCs on \connect |
| Date: | 2023-04-28 13:42:03 |
| Message-ID: | 04b70513-bb02-1406-2430-35a4daa6dedc@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/27/23 8:04 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:30 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Additionally, I think if we start recording role OID, then we need a
>> full set of management clauses for each individual option ownership.
>> Otherwise, we would leave this new role OID without necessarily
>> management facilities. But with them, the whole stuff will look like
>> awful overengineering.
>
> I can also predict a lot of ambiguous cases. For instance, we
> existing setting can be overridden with a different role OID. If it
> has been overridden can the overwriter turn it back?
[RMT hat]
While the initial bug has been fixed, given there is discussion on
reverting 096dd80f3, I've added this as an open item.
I want to study this a bit more before providing my own opinion on revert.
Thanks,
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eric Ridge | 2023-04-28 14:03:13 | Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames |
| Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2023-04-28 12:29:13 | Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation |