|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 11:45:49PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
Or, to match log_statement, use: none, dml, all.
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2019-07-08 14:31:53||Re: Broken defenses against dropping a partitioning column|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2019-07-08 14:19:56||Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)|