| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ivan Panchenko <wao(at)mail(dot)ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: On login trigger: take three |
| Date: | 2022-03-14 08:50:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3D73A5D0-8786-4FB9-8C63-53AF57473CEC@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 14 Mar 2022, at 00:33, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> We already have GUCs like row_security, so it doesn't seem insane to add one
> that disables login event triggers. What is the danger that you see?
My fear is that GUCs like that end up as permanent fixtures in scripts etc
after having been used temporary, and then X timeunits later someone realize
that the backup has never actually really worked due to a subtle issue, or
something else unpleasant.
The row_security GUC is kind of different IMO, as it's required for pg_dump
(though it can be used in the same way as the above).
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2022-03-14 09:32:25 | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-03-14 08:34:10 | Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks |