Horton

Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`

Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>

View thread
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus.hagander@redpill-linpro.com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-03-27T15:50:27Z
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.

Attachments

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 16:10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:01 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Uh, the above is clearly wrong.  I think you mean "off" on the second line.
>
> Woops. When the name changed from externally_managed_configuration to
> allow_alter_system, the sense of it was reversed, and I guess Jelte
> missed flipping the documentation references around.

Yeah, that's definitely what happened. I did change a few, but I
indeed missed a few others (or maybe flipped some twice by accident,
or hadn't been flipped before when it reversed previously).

> > Why "remotely"?
>
> This wording was suggested upthread. I think the point here is that if
> the superuser is logging in from the local machine, it's obvious that
> they can do whatever they want. The point is to emphasize that a
> superuser without a local login can, too.

Changed this from "remotely using other means" to "using other SQL commands".

> > "its"?
>
> Yeah, that seems like an extra word.

Changed this to "the configuration of PostgreSQL"

> > > +        some outside mechanism. In such environments, using <command>ALTER
> > > +        SYSTEM</command> to make configuration changes might appear to work,
> > > +        but then may be discarded at some point in the future when that outside
> >
> > "might"
>
> This does not seem like a mistake to me. I'm not sure why you think it is.

I also think the original sentence was correct, but I don't think it
read very naturally. Changed it now in hopes to improve that.

> > > +        mechanism updates the configuration. Setting this parameter to
> > > +        <literal>on</literal> can help to avoid such mistakes.
> > > +       </para>
> >
> > "off"
>
> This is another case that needs to be fixed now that the sense of the
> GUC is reversed. (We'd better make sure the code has the test the
> right way around, too.)

Fixed this one too, and the code is the right way around.