Re: ALTER SYSTEM vs symlink

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER SYSTEM vs symlink
Date: 2015-11-02 17:58:01
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYPkp8pXyvgKfbHdk7Qy=wsOPKvcz76WEcoOCqTeBjzgw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> This is all very environment specific. Changes to postgresql.conf, in
> many environments, go through a serious of tests before being deployed
> by a CM system. How do we accomplish the same kind of tests before
> deploying a change with ALTER SYSTEM? We provide no mechanism to do
> that today.

We provide no mechanism to put the changes to put postgresql.conf
changes through a series of tests before being deployed by a CM
system, either. But you can do that if you want.

Two different methods of restricting ALTER SYSTEM have already been
discussed on this thread: one using file permissions, and the other
using ProcessUtility_hook. I personally think that's good enough.
It's true that you could have a separate GUC for it, but then somebody
could lock themselves out by turning the GUC on using ALTER SYSTEM, so
now you've made things easier for one group of users while creating a
new pitfall for another group of users. I'm not sure we really come
out ahead, there.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-11-02 18:03:38 Re: WIP: Rework access method interface
Previous Message Joe Conway 2015-11-02 17:51:03 Re: ALTER SYSTEM vs symlink