Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

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

Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, 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>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus.hagander@redpill-linpro.com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>

Date: 2024-03-27T01:23:55Z

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 →

Add allow_alter_system GUC.
- d3ae2a24f265 17.0 landed
Rename COMPAT_OPTIONS_CLIENT to COMPAT_OPTIONS_OTHER.
- de7e96bd0fc6 17.0 landed
Remove support for version-0 calling conventions.
- 5ded4bd21403 10.0 cited


> On Mar 27, 2024, at 3:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Agree. I don’t think “_command” adds much clarity.

Cheers

Andrew