On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> In short, maybe we ought to invent a new category PGC_SU_BACKEND (not
>> wedded to this spelling), which is to PGC_BACKEND as PGC_SUSET is to
>> PGC_USERSET, ie same when-it-can-be-changed behavior but only superusers
>> are allowed to change it. I don't have any objection to making these two
>> settings only adjustable by superusers --- I just don't want to give up
>> the existing timing restrictions for them.
>
> Another idea would be to get rid of PGC_SUSET as a separate category, and
> instead have a superuser-only bit in the GUC flags, which would apply to
> all categories. This would be a bit more orthogonal, though likely a
> much more invasive change.
That could become interesting in the futuren ow that we have ALTER
SYSTEM SET. It could allow a non-superuser to make persistent
configuration changes. Now, I'm not sure we actually *want* that
though... But having it as a separate bit would make it possible for
ALTER SYSTEM SET to say that for example regular users would be able
to change work_mem persistently. But if we want to go down that route,
we might need a more fine grained permissions model than just
superuser vs non-superuser...
I think going with the PGC_SU_BACKEND is the right choice at this
time, until we have an actual usecase for the other :)
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
