From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Configuration Parameter/GUC value validation hook |
Date: | 2022-05-03 15:45:41 |
Message-ID: | 2157142.1651592741@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have some desire here to see us solve this problem not just for
> service providers, but for users in general. You don't have to be a
> service provider to want to disallow SET work_mem = '1TB' -- you just
> need to be a DBA on a system where such a setting will cause bad
> things to happen. But, if you are a DBA on some random system, you
> won't likely find a hook to be a particularly useful way of
> controlling this sort of thing.
Yeah, I think this is a more realistic point. I too am not sure what
a good facility would look like. I guess an argument in favor of
providing a hook is that we could then leave it to extension authors
to try to devise a facility that's useful to end users, rather than
having to write an in-core feature.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-05-03 17:04:31 | [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures |
Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2022-05-03 15:19:01 | SQL/JSON: FOR ORDINALITY bug |