Re: A modest proposal: get rid of GUC's USERLIMIT

Andrew McMillan wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew McMillan <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> > > When tracking down gnarly problems in heavily multi-user applications
> > > enabling higher log levels at selective points has the potential to help
> > > _a lot_ with diagnostic detail, without smothering you in _every_
> > > detail.
> >
> > Sure. As I pointed out in the other thread, if you want to allow an app
> > to do this, you can make available a SECURITY DEFINER function that
> > performs the desired SET on its behalf. By setting execute permissions
> > on the function and/or including restrictions in the function's code,
> > you can make this as tight or as loose a loophole as you like. So it's
> > certainly possible to do what you want in any case. I think the issue
> > at hand is what's appropriate to provide as hard-wired functionality.
>
> That sounds excellent - I hadn't realised that this workaround would be
> possible, and indeed with this in place that will provide even better
> control over the facility.

OK, here is one vote for the ALTER USER/remove USERLIMIT croud, and you
were the person who originally mentioned the problem. You don't think
the function creation is hard. Perhaps that's the way to go then.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073