> On Mar 27, 2024, at 3:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> I am thinking "enable_alter_system_command" is probably good because we
>> already use "enable" so why not reuse that idea, and I think "command"
>> is needed because we need to clarify we are talking about the command,
>> and not generic altering of the system. We could use
>> "enable_sql_alter_system" if people want something shorter.
>
> Robert already mentioned why not use "enable_": up to now that prefix
> has only been applied to planner plan-type-enabling GUCs. I'd be okay
> with "allow_alter_system_command", although I find it unnecessarily
> verbose.
Agree. I don’t think “_command” adds much clarity.
Cheers
Andrew
