| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(dot)hagander(at)redpill-linpro(dot)com>, "daniel(at)yesql(dot)se" <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |
| Date: | 2024-03-14 20:38:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY9a3n8uiVGFyhxENN40q8HNzyfJ_asP8xm44Ec+dSG3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The patch-of-record contains no such wording.
I plan to fix that, if nobody else beats me to it.
> And if this isn't a
> security feature, then what is it? If you have to say to your
> (super) users "please don't mess with the system configuration",
> you might as well just trust them not to do it the easy way as not
> to do it the hard way. If they're untrustworthy, why have they
> got superuser?
I mean, I feel like this question has been asked and answered before,
multiple times, on this thread. If you sincerely don't understand the
use case, I can try again to explain it. But somehow I feel like it's
more that you just don't like the idea, which is fair, but it seems
like a considerable number of people feel otherwise.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2024-03-14 20:40:38 | Re: Add basic tests for the low-level backup method. |
| Previous Message | Anton A. Melnikov | 2024-03-14 20:36:12 | Re: Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to backends. |