> On Jun 3, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This design looks good for extensions, but I am not sure if it is good for
> users. Some declarative way without necessity to programming or install some
> extension can be nice.
I agree, though "some declarative way" is a bit vague. I've had ideas that
perhaps superusers should be able to further restrict the [min,max] fields of
int and real GUCs. Since -1 is sometimes used to mean "disabled", syntax to
allow specifying a set might be necessary, something like [-1, 60..600]. For
text and enum GUCs, perhaps a set of regexps would work, some being required to
match and others being required not to match, such as:
search_path !~ '\mcustomerx\M'
search_path ~ '^pg_catalog,'
If we did something like this, we'd need it to play nicely with other filters
provided by extensions, because I'm reasonably sure not all filters could be
done merely using set notation and regular expression syntax. In fact, I find
it hard to convince myself that set notation and regular expression syntax
would even be useful in a large enough number of cases to be worth
implementing. What are your thought on that?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
