Re: What's the point of allow_system_table_mods?

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-10 15:00:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What exactly is the motivation for changing this now, after 20 years?

> That I've seen enough corruption and other hard to investigate issues
> related to manual catalog modifications to make me complain. Note that
> other have complained about this before, too.

So, if the problem is that cowboy DBAs are making ill-advised manual
changes, how is a SUSET GUC going to stop them from doing that?
They'll just turn it on and make the same ill-advised change, especially
after they see us and other people doing exactly that in extensions.

If you're arguing that the changes were accidental, it seems like the real
answer to that is "stop using superuser unnecessarily". I don't think
that adding training wheels to superuser is really a great idea in the
long run. I remember wars back in the last century about whether rm
should be hacked to disallow "rm -rf /" even to superusers. The eventual
consensus was "no", and this seems about the same.

regards, tom lane