Re: allow_system_table_mods stuff - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: allow_system_table_mods stuff
Date
Msg-id 20190708034549.mjnp6joi7lyxsqfq@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: allow_system_table_mods stuff  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: allow_system_table_mods stuff  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:20:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I do see value in two switches not one, but it's what I said above,
> to not need to give people *more* chance-to-break-things than they
> had before when doing manual catalog fixes.  That is, we need a
> setting that corresponds more or less to current default behavior.
> 
> There's an aesthetic argument to be had about whether to have two
> bools or one three-way switch, but I prefer the former; there's
> no backward-compatibility issue here since allow_system_table_mods
> couldn't be set by applications anyway.

I like a single three-way switch since if you are allowing DDL, you
probably don't care if you restrict DML.  log_statement already has a
similar distinction with values of none, ddl, mod, all.  I assume
allow_system_table_mods could have value of false, dml, true.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions
Next
From: "Kato, Sho"
Date:
Subject: RE: Run-time pruning for ModifyTable