| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allow_system_table_mods stuff |
| Date: | 2019-07-08 03:45:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20190708034549.mjnp6joi7lyxsqfq@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:20:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I do see value in two switches not one, but it's what I said above,
> to not need to give people *more* chance-to-break-things than they
> had before when doing manual catalog fixes. That is, we need a
> setting that corresponds more or less to current default behavior.
>
> There's an aesthetic argument to be had about whether to have two
> bools or one three-way switch, but I prefer the former; there's
> no backward-compatibility issue here since allow_system_table_mods
> couldn't be set by applications anyway.
I like a single three-way switch since if you are allowing DDL, you
probably don't care if you restrict DML. log_statement already has a
similar distinction with values of none, ddl, mod, all. I assume
allow_system_table_mods could have value of false, dml, true.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kato, Sho | 2019-07-08 03:56:03 | RE: Run-time pruning for ModifyTable |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-07-08 03:22:31 | Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions |