Horton

Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua.brindle@crunchydata.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Joe Conway <joe@crunchydata.com>
Date: 2022-03-17T13:54:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 16.03.22 19:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm also fairly allergic to the way that this patch has decided to assign
> multi-word names to privilege types (ie SET VALUE, ALTER SYSTEM).  There
> is no existing precedent for that, and I think it's going to break
> client-side code that we don't need to break.  It's not coincidental that
> this forces weird changes in rules about whitespace in the has_privilege
> functions, for example; and if you think that isn't going to cause
> problems I think you are wrong.  Perhaps we could just use "SET" and
> "ALTER", or "SET" and "SYSTEM"?

I think Oracle and MS SQL Server have many multi-word privilege names. 
So users are quite used to that.  And if we want to add more complex 
privileges, we might run out of sensible single words eventually.  So I 
would not exclude this approach.

Commits

  1. Allow granting SET and ALTER SYSTEM privileges on GUC parameters.