On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Barring someone committing to spend the time to improve that situation
>> (time that would be poorly invested IMO), I don't think that we want to
>> open up ignore_system_indexes as USERSET, or do anything else to encourage
>> its use.
>>
>> If we're intent on removing PGC_BACKEND then I'd be okay with
>> reclassifying ignore_system_indexes as SUSET; but I'm not exactly
>> convinced that we should be trying to get rid of PGC_BACKEND.
>
> Well, if you want to discourage its use, I think there's an argument
> that marking it as SUSET would be more restrictive than what we have
> at present, since it would altogether prohibit non-superuser use.
>
> I'm not wedded to the idea of getting rid of PGC_BACKEND, but I do
> like it. Peter's survey of the landscape seems to show that there's
> very little left in that category and the stuff that is there is
> somewhat uninspiring. And simplifying things is always nice.
Documentation fixes for the use of local_preload_libraries have been
pushed, now there has been some wider discussion about changing the
mode of a couple of parameters since PGC_SU_BACKEND has been
introduced. Any problems to switch this patch to "Returned with
feedback"? The discussion done here is wider than the simple use of
local_preload_libraries in any case.
--
Michael
