Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:34:28 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Should we remove db_user_namespace?
Message-ID: <20230714233428.GA474210@nathanxps13>
References: <20230630200509.GA2830328@nathanxps13>
 <ZKJ2xwbI1onh5hHB@paquier.xyz>
 <20230705212927.GA3518200@nathanxps13>
 <ZKX67iJ2MxQVCgap@paquier.xyz>
 <20230706034926.GA3603547@nathanxps13>
 <ZKuoe7LyX9U0PYNr@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZKuoe7LyX9U0PYNr@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230714233428.GA474210%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:43:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 08:49:26PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:21:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Removing the GUC from this table is kind of annoying.  Cannot this be
>>> handled like default_with_oids or ssl_renegotiation_limit to avoid any
>>> kind of issues with the reload of dump files and the kind?
>> 
>> Ah, good catch.
> 
> Thanks.  Reading through the patch, this version should be able to
> handle the dump reloads.

Hm.  Do we actually need to worry about this?  It's a PGC_SIGHUP GUC, so it
can only be set at postmaster start or via a configuration file.  Any dump
files that are trying to set it or clients that are trying to add it to
startup packets are already broken.  I guess keeping the GUC around would
avoid breaking any configuration files or startup scripts that happen to be
setting it to false, but I don't know if that's really worth worrying
about.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com