On 02/11/2016 07:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> If you make max_worker_processes USERSET won't everybody just set it to >> max_worker_processes? > > I think that you meant for the first instance of max_worker_processes > in that sentence to be max_parallel_degree. I'll respond as if that's > what you meant. Basically, I think this like asking whether everybody > won't just set work_mem to the entire amount of free memory on the > machine and try to use it all themselves. We really have never tried > very hard to prevent that sort of thing in PostgreSQL. Maybe we > should, but we'd have to fix an awful lot of stuff. There are many > ways for malicious users to do things that interfere with the ability > of other users to use the system. I admit that the same problem > exists here, but I don't think it's any more severe than any of the > cases that already exist. In some ways I think it's a whole lot LESS > serious than what a bad work_mem setting an do to your system.
This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking -- work_mem is already a bigger potential problem than this. In general I think we need to eventually provide more admin control over USERSET GUCs, but that is a whole other conversation. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
