On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 05:43:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It probably is. I'm just offering this as a solution if people want to
> insist on a mechanism to prevent unsafe GUC changes. If we drop the
> idea of trying to forcibly prevent extensions from Doing It Wrong,
> then we don't need this, only the extra hook.
FWIW, I'd be fine with a simple solution like what Julien has been
proposing with the extra hook, rather than a GUC to enforce all that.
That may be nice in the long-run, but the potential benefits may not
be completely clear, either, after a closer read of this thread.
--
Michael
