| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs |
| Date: | 2022-03-17 14:47:03 |
| Message-ID: | 771410.1647528423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 16.03.22 19:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Perhaps we could just use "SET" and
>> "ALTER", or "SET" and "SYSTEM"?
> I think Oracle and MS SQL Server have many multi-word privilege names.
> So users are quite used to that. And if we want to add more complex
> privileges, we might run out of sensible single words eventually. So I
> would not exclude this approach.
Well, I still say that "SET" is sufficient for the one privilege name
(unless we really can't make Bison handle that, which I doubt). But
I'm willing to yield on using "ALTER SYSTEM" for the other.
If we go with s/SETTING/PARAMETER/ as per your other message, then
that would be adequately consistent with the docs I think. So it'd
be
GRANT { SET | ALTER SYSTEM } ON PARAMETER foo TO ...
and the new catalog would be pg_parameter_acl, and so on.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-03-17 14:51:45 | Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option |
| Previous Message | Pavel Borisov | 2022-03-17 14:46:30 | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |