public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Mark Dilger <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 07:57:41 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZMuUm8vuVQ6yLzrKx=W_7WVP6QeRNHtntb1UMg7X7S9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmobaKUYZhfXs-7kHjsmDmkcttH7-r9E2BJXUHtv9mkUUcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmoYWqjpHEogdCEbRwzUb5ZoEaUt8ciNUXFCwLZDWBe+_BA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmoZMuUm8vuVQ6yLzrKx=W_7WVP6QeRNHtntb1UMg7X7S9w@mail.gmail.com>



> On Nov 17, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> I was aware of that, but figured not all GUCs have to be grantable.  If it doesn't fit in a NameData, you can't grant on it.
> 
> Such restrictions are rather counterintuitive for users, and here it
> doesn't even buy anything. Using 'text' rather than 'name' as the data
> type isn't going to cost any meaningful amount of performance.

That sounds fine.

>> If we want to be more accommodating than that, we can store it as text, just like pg_db_role_names does, but then we need more code complexity to look it up and to verify that it is unique.  (We wouldn't want multiple records for the same <role,guc> pair.)
> 
> If you're verifying that it's unique in any way other than using a
> unique index, I think you're doing it wrong.

No, I'm using a unique index.  I was overthinking it, concerned about changing from name_ops to text_ops and needing the toast table, but that's silly, because I need one for the acl anyway.

> Also, maybe I'm confused here, but why isn't the schema:
> 
> gucoid
> gucname
> gucacl

It is, both in v2 already posted, and in the v3, written but not yet posted, as I haven't finished the pg_dump work, and also I'm waiting to see how this discussion gets resolved before asking for a review of v3.

> IOW, I don't understand why this table has <role,guc> as the primary
> key rather than just guc.

I was responding to Tom's recommendation that I follow the pattern in pg_db_role_setting, and speculating how that would work.  I was not proposing to do it that way.

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

view thread (67+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox