Horton

Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus.hagander@redpill-linpro.com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-03-26T17:23:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add allow_alter_system GUC.

  2. Rename COMPAT_OPTIONS_CLIENT to COMPAT_OPTIONS_OTHER.

  3. Remove support for version-0 calling conventions.

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I am thinking "enable_alter_system_command" is probably good because we
> already use "enable" so why not reuse that idea, and I think "command"
> is needed because we need to clarify we are talking about the command,
> and not generic altering of the system.  We could use
> "enable_sql_alter_system" if people want something shorter.

Robert already mentioned why not use "enable_": up to now that prefix
has only been applied to planner plan-type-enabling GUCs.  I'd be okay
with "allow_alter_system_command", although I find it unnecessarily
verbose.

> Will people think this allows non-root users to use ALTER SYSTEM if
> enabled?

They'll soon find out differently, so I'm not concerned about that.

			regards, tom lane