| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible regression setting GUCs on \connect |
| Date: | 2023-04-28 00:04:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdu6roOVEUsV9TWNdQ=TZCrNEEwJM62EQiKULUyjpERhtg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:30 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Additionally, I think if we start recording role OID, then we need a
> full set of management clauses for each individual option ownership.
> Otherwise, we would leave this new role OID without necessarily
> management facilities. But with them, the whole stuff will look like
> awful overengineering.
I can also predict a lot of ambiguous cases. For instance, we
existing setting can be overridden with a different role OID. If it
has been overridden can the overwriter turn it back?
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-04-28 01:58:53 | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-04-27 23:30:57 | Re: Possible regression setting GUCs on \connect |