| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(dot)hagander(at)redpill-linpro(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |
| Date: | 2024-03-27 01:23:55 |
| Message-ID: | CD775A29-777B-4EA9-883F-DF1809E5270D@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 27, 2024, at 3:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> I am thinking "enable_alter_system_command" is probably good because we
>> already use "enable" so why not reuse that idea, and I think "command"
>> is needed because we need to clarify we are talking about the command,
>> and not generic altering of the system. We could use
>> "enable_sql_alter_system" if people want something shorter.
>
> Robert already mentioned why not use "enable_": up to now that prefix
> has only been applied to planner plan-type-enabling GUCs. I'd be okay
> with "allow_alter_system_command", although I find it unnecessarily
> verbose.
Agree. I don’t think “_command” adds much clarity.
Cheers
Andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-03-27 01:36:16 | Re: add AVX2 support to simd.h |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2024-03-27 00:24:50 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |