On 04/20/2018 04:03 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: >>>>>> "Chapman" == Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> writes: > Chapman> It seemed to me at the time to be not hard to implement, even > Chapman> just as an extension for proof of concept. One small obstacle > Chapman> is that the check hook on a variable doesn't get called during > Chapman> attempted RESET, so the only way to block a prohibited RESET > Chapman> would have to be from an assign hook, which isn't expected to > Chapman> fail. It could surely throw an error, but which would mess up > Chapman> the whole RESET, but might be tolerable. > > Assign hooks aren't allowed to throw errors under any circumstance > because they're called during transaction abort, and throwing an error > during abort is obviously not tolerable.
Ah yes, now you remind me, that was why I had put my extension idea on the table at the time. It seems as if, for any of these ideas (cookie-protection of GUCs or just SET READONLY for GUCs), at least some small patch to core will be prerequisite, to allow either a flag or a reset check hook able to make RESET skip protected GUCs. -Chap
