Horton

Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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: 2024-03-26T16:35:39Z
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.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 10:23:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:04 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> To me, externally_managed_configuration is promising a lot more than it
> >> delivers because there is still a lot of ocnfiguration it doesn't
> >> control.  I am also confused why the purpose of the feature, external
> >> management of configuation, is part of the variable name.  We usually
> >> name parameters for what they control.
> 
> > I actually agree with this. I wasn't going to quibble with it because
> > other people seemed to like it. But I think something like
> > allow_alter_system would be better, as it would describe the exact
> > thing that the parameter does, rather than how we think the parameter
> > ought to be used.
> 
> +1.  The overpromise-and-underdeliver aspect of the currently proposed
> name is a lot of the reason I've been unhappy and kept pushing for it
> to lock things down more.  "allow_alter_system" is a lot more
> straightforward about exactly what it does, and if that is all we want
> it to do, then a name like that is good.

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.

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

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.