Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`

At 2024-03-26 08:11:33 -0400, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:04 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > > > Isn't "configuration" too generic a term for disabling ALTER SYSTEM?
> > >
> > > maybe "externally_managed_auto_config"
> >
> > How many people associate "auto" with ALTER SYSTEM? I assume not many.
> >
> > To me, externally_managed_configuration is promising a lot more than it
> > delivers because there is still a lot of ocnfiguration it doesn't
> > control. I am also confused why the purpose of the feature, external
> > management of configuation, is part of the variable name. We usually
> > name parameters for what they control.
>
> I actually agree with this. I wasn't going to quibble with it because
> other people seemed to like it. But I think something like
> allow_alter_system would be better, as it would describe the exact
> thing that the parameter does, rather than how we think the parameter
> ought to be used.

Yes, "externally_managed_configuration" raises far more questions than
it answers. "enable_alter_system" is clearer in terms of what to expect
when you set it. "enable_alter_system_command" is rather long, but even
better in that it is specific enough to not promise anything about not
allowing superusers to change the configuration some other way.

-- Abhijit (as someone who could find a use for this feature)