Re: Improving GUC prefix ownership for extensions

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving GUC prefix ownership for extensions
Date: 2026-02-11 16:07:37
Message-ID: CAKFQuwZtF27GpUKw92jKQQQrQ6hoX+uJLEM-sXx34g+uosWS_Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday, February 11, 2026, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> Thoughts, would this be a useful feature?
>

I’d go with leaving well enough alone. How bad are the consequences of
leaving this protection mechanism opt-in? Do we really want the grief of
making it mandatory?

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2026-02-11 16:11:15 Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-02-11 15:29:00 Re: Little cleanup: Move ProcStructLock to the ProcGlobal struct