Re: Configuration Parameter/GUC value validation hook

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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