| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible regression setting GUCs on \connect |
| Date: | 2023-05-17 16:57:45 |
| Message-ID: | 615b0a29-a859-b05a-46b6-45daf28bf685@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/17/23 12:47 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:08:36AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
>>
>> My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
>> way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
>
> I agree. The problem seems worth solving, but I think we ought to consider
> a different approach. Apologies for not chiming in earlier on the original
> thread.
[RMT hat, personal opinion]
I do agree that the feature itself is useful, but given there is
disagreement over the feature design, particularly from people who have
spent time working on features and analyzing the security ramifications
in this area, the safest option is to revert and try again for v17.
I suggest we revert before Beta 1.
Thanks,
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2023-05-17 17:10:08 | Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context? |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-05-17 16:47:04 | Re: Possible regression setting GUCs on \connect |