On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Is there really a use case for users fiddling with pg_proc, pg_class, >> etc. directly? > > There's a use case for *superusers* to fiddle with them, yes. > (Superusers are presumed to be adults.) I think I recommend a quick > UPDATE on some catalog at least once a month on the lists. > > You might care to consider the fact that no modern Unix system prevents > root from doing rm -rf /, even though that's "obviously" disastrous. > Yet (stretching the analogy all out of shape) there's no convenient user > tool for rearranging the contents of all the inodes on a filesystem.
Sure. I guess it boils down to how much use case you think there is for updating system catalogs directly (rather than using DDL). I don't follow all the lists so I haven't seen these recommendations. >> At any rate, I'd be happy to drop that part of the proposal. It would >> be a step forward just to permit (even without >> allow_system_table_mods) those changes which don't alter the structure >> of the catalog. For ALTER TABLE, the SET STATISTICS, (RE)SET >> (attribute_option), SET STORAGE, CLUSTER ON, SET WITHOUT CLUSTER, and >> (RE)SET (reloptions) forms are all things that fall into this >> category, I believe. > > It would be far less work to just drop allow_system_table_mods to SUSET. > And we wouldn't get questions about which forms of ALTER TABLE require > it. I think there's some value in distinguishing between things which are "only for adults" and things which are "almost certainly a bad idea". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
