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: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus.hagander@redpill-linpro.com>
Date: 2024-03-18T14:12:25Z
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 Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 13:57, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have been somewhat inclined to find an existing section
> of postgresql.auto.conf for this parameter, perhaps "platform and
> version compatibility".

I tried to find an existing section, but I couldn't find any that this
new GUC would fit into naturally. "Version and Platform Compatibility
/ Previous PostgreSQL Versions" (the one you suggested) seems wrong
too. The GUCs there are to get back to Postgres behaviour from
previous versions. So that section would only make sense if we'd turn
enable_alter_system off by default (which obviously no-one in this
thread suggests/wants).

If you have another suggestion for an existing category that we should
use, feel free to share. But imho, none of the existing ones are a
good fit.

> Even if that is what we're going to do, do we want to call them "guard
> rails"? I'm not sure I'd find that name terribly clear, as a user.

If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm happy to change it.


On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 14:09, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Mar 2024, at 13:57, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > my proposal is something like this, taking a
> > bunch of text from Jelte's patch and some inspiration from Magnus's
> > earlier remarks:
>
> I still think any wording should clearly mention that settings in the file are
> still applied.  The proposed wording says to implicitly but to avoid confusion
> I think it should be explicit.

I updated the first two paragraphs with Robert his wording (and did
not remove the third one as that addresses the point made by Daniel)