Re: What's the point of allow_system_table_mods?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What's the point of allow_system_table_mods?
Date: 2019-05-10 19:16:13
Message-ID: 20190510191613.wvqh4bjp32wiyukh@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-05-10 19:51:10 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Andres" == Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>
> Andres> Why is it so much more dangerous? I've seen plenty of corrupted
> Andres> clusters due to people doing DML against the catalogs. I'm OK
> Andres> with adding separate GUCs for both, if we want to do that, but
> Andres> I do think we shouldn't allow updating the catalogs wthout
> Andres> having having the superuser explicitly opt into that.
>
> Be aware that a nonzero number of extensions (postgis especially) do
> catalog DML in their install or update scripts. While you might well
> think they shouldn't do that, in practice there is usually no viable
> alternative.

Sure, but if it's a SUSET GUC that'd not be a huge problem, would it?
They'd need to locally set it, which, sure. But it'd also be a good way
to signal such things to readers.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-05-10 19:19:26 Re: What's the point of allow_system_table_mods?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-05-10 19:00:18 Re: What's the point of allow_system_table_mods?