Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-11-27 09:26, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Peter, are you planning to look at that again? Note: the patch has no
>> reviewers registered.
> Here is an updated patch series.
> After re-reading the discussion again, I have kept the existing name of
> the option. I have also moved the tests to the "unsafe_tests" suite,
> which seems like a better place. And I have split the patch into three.
Personally I'd have gone with the renaming to allow_system_table_ddl,
but it's not a huge point. Updating the code to agree with that
naming would make the patch much more invasive, so maybe it's not
worth it.
> Other than those cosmetic changes, I think everything here has been
> discussed and agreed to, so unless anyone expresses any concern or a
> wish to do more review, I think this is ready to commit.
I read through the patch set and have just one quibble: in the
proposed new docs,
+ Allows modification of the structure of system tables as well as
+ certain other risky actions on system tables. This is otherwise not
+ allowed even for superusers. This is used by
+ <command>initdb</command>. Inconsiderate use of this setting can
+ cause irretrievable data loss or seriously corrupt the database
+ system. Only superusers can change this setting.
"Inconsiderate" doesn't seem like le mot juste. Maybe "Ill-advised"?
(I'm also wondering whether the sentence about initdb is worth keeping.)
I marked the CF entry RFC.
regards, tom lane
