From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers |
Date: | 2021-05-03 16:25:04 |
Message-ID: | 3BA684BE-56D3-4800-8289-E6373D0FA011@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On May 3, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> One problem with having a separate predefined role for every PGC_SUSET
> GUC is that it's no help for extensions. Both auto_explain and
> pg_stat_statements have such GUCs, and there may be out-of-core
> extensions that do as well. We should try to come up with a system
> that doesn't leave them out in the cold.
As things stand, all custom variables defined via the DefineCustom{Bool,Int,Real,String,Enum}Variable are placed in the CUSTOM_OPTIONS config_group. We could add a role for controlling any SUSET CUSTOM_OPTIONS GUCs, or we could extend those functions to take a config_group option, or perhaps some of both. I haven't thought too much yet about whether allowing extensions to place a custom GUC into one of the predefined groups would be problematic. Any thoughts on that?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-05-03 16:34:08 | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-05-03 15:48:52 | Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs |