On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> In short, maybe we ought to invent a new category PGC_SU_BACKEND (not >> wedded to this spelling), which is to PGC_BACKEND as PGC_SUSET is to >> PGC_USERSET, ie same when-it-can-be-changed behavior but only superusers >> are allowed to change it. I don't have any objection to making these two >> settings only adjustable by superusers --- I just don't want to give up >> the existing timing restrictions for them. > > Another idea would be to get rid of PGC_SUSET as a separate category, and > instead have a superuser-only bit in the GUC flags, which would apply to > all categories. This would be a bit more orthogonal, though likely a > much more invasive change.
That could become interesting in the futuren ow that we have ALTER SYSTEM SET. It could allow a non-superuser to make persistent configuration changes. Now, I'm not sure we actually *want* that though... But having it as a separate bit would make it possible for ALTER SYSTEM SET to say that for example regular users would be able to change work_mem persistently. But if we want to go down that route, we might need a more fine grained permissions model than just superuser vs non-superuser... I think going with the PGC_SU_BACKEND is the right choice at this time, until we have an actual usecase for the other :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
