Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mn0OQ-0005AE-FG for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:29:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mn0OP-0006HR-6c for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:29:05 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mn0OO-0006HI-PH for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:29:04 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mn0OM-0000kf-Iz for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:29:03 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 1AGFSv1M2226904; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:28:57 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Mark Dilger , PostgreSQL-development , Andrew Dunstan Subject: Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs In-reply-to: References: <3D691E20-C1D5-4B80-8BA5-6BEB63AF3029@enterprisedb.com> <2226110.1637075835@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:23:27 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2226902.1637076537.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:28:57 -0500 Message-ID: <2226903.1637076537@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:17 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> Right. I think that any design that involves per-GUC catalog entries >> is going to be an abysmal failure, precisely because the set of GUCs >> is not stable enough. > In practice it's pretty stable. I think it's just a matter of having a > plan that covers the cases where it isn't stable reasonably elegantly. Um. Really the point comes down to having sane default behavior when there's no entry, which ought to eliminate any need to do the sort of "run over all the entries at startup" processing that you seemed to be proposing. So I guess I don't understand why such a thing would be needed. > We already embed GUC names in catalog entries when someone runs ALTER > USER SET or ALTER DATABASE SET, so this proposal doesn't seem to be > moving the goalposts in any meaningful way. True; as long as the expectation is that entries will exist for only a tiny subset of GUCs, it's probably fine. regards, tom lane