Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2022-03-16 21:09:35
Message-ID: 839181ab-5edb-d696-f888-458099f2d09d@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 3/16/22 16:53, Tom Lane wrote:

>> Personally I don't have problem with the use of SETTING. I think the
>> meaning is pretty plain in context and unlikely to produce any confusion.
> I'm just unhappy about the disconnect with the documentation. I wonder
> if we could get away with s/configuration parameter/setting/g in the docs.
>
>

I don't think we need to fix that here though. If you can live with
SETTING for now I will undertake to fix the docs post-feature-freeze if
necessary.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zheng Li 2022-03-16 21:17:18 Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-03-16 20:53:02 Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs