On 05/03/21 11:22, Robert Haas wrote: >> The GUC system would have to expose a way for the shared object to >> chain extra_check_hooks off existing GUCs. An extra_check_hook can check >> both the value and the role of the caller. > > I think there are two parts to this problem. First, the SP needs to be > able to delegate to some users but not others the ability to set > superuser GUCs. Second, the SP needs to be able to control which GUCs > the privileged users get to set and perhaps to what values. A hook of > the type you propose here seems like it might work reasonably well for > that second part, but it's not totally obvious to me how it helps with > the first part.
I guess I was thinking, but forgot to convey to the keyboard, that the existence of a non-empty extra_check_hooks chain on a SUSET GUC (which could only have been attached from a shared preload library) would implicitly change SUSET to mean settable whenever accepted by the hook(s). Regards, -Chap
