|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: proposal: session server side variables|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> There are more reasons, why I would not to use GUC
> 0. it is not designed be secure - there is different security model -
> readonly, superuser, others
Sure, GUCs as is are not enough, but the model can be extended instead
of re-inventing the wheel with a new kind of variable.
> 1. it is dynamic - not persistent - cannot be used as package variables
Half-persistence (in definition, not in value) is not a key feature needed
by the use-case.
> 2. there is different placing - custom requires prefix - I prefer using our
> schemas, because schemas are used in pg like packages in Oracle
> 3. large number of GUC decrease performace of end of transactions,
That is life. The presented use-case really needs only one variable.
> 4. any RDBMS using untransactional variables - it should be default
> optimized behave
Hmmm. Untransactional variables do **NOT** fit the use case, it just works
"sometimes", which is not acceptabe.
I've spent too much time on reviewing this proposal. My conclusion is:
- a clear use case linked to security setups has been presented
which requires some kind of secure (i.e. with access control) session
variables, currently not available in pg which has user-defined GUC
which are dynamic, untyped (TEXT), public, transactional.
- you have proposed a NEW kind of session variables which is:
(1) statically typed, declared permanently in the catalog, in the
(2) values are session alive
(3) untransactional, as you insist on that (your 4. above)
(4) with permissions
My feedback is that:
- The proposed feature does not fit the presented use case it is intended
for. There is no use case for untransactional secure session variables.
The proposal should be amended so that the variables display by default
some transactional properties because it is required for correctly
implementing the use case.
- Personnaly, I'm not convinced that a NEW type of session variable is
a good thing as pg already has one, and two is one too many. I would
find it more useful to enhance existing dynamic session variables with,
by order of importance:
(1) private/public visibility (as Oracle does with package vars).
this point is enough to implement the presented use case.
(2) typing (casting is a pain)
(3) improved syntax (set_config & current_setting is a pain)
Eventually, unrelated to the use case, but in line with your motivations
as I understand them:
(4) add an option to make a GUC non transactional, iff there is
a clear use case for that (maybe debug?).
(5) have some "permanent" GUC type declarations (maybe editing the
config file does that already, by the way?)
|Next Message||Fabien COELHO||2017-01-05 10:45:24||Re: proposal: session server side variables (fwd)|
|Previous Message||Kuntal Ghosh||2017-01-05 10:24:32||Re: Add pgstathashindex() to get hash index table statistics.|