On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > Is there really a use case for users fiddling with pg_proc, pg_class,
>> > etc. directly?
>>
>> There's a use case for *superusers* to fiddle with them, yes.
>> (Superusers are presumed to be adul
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Is there really a use case for users fiddling with pg_proc, pg_class,
> > etc. directly?
>
> There's a use case for *superusers* to fiddle with them, yes.
> (Superusers are presumed to be adults.) I think I recommend a quick
> UPDATE on some catalog at
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Is there really a use case for users fiddling with pg_proc, pg_class,
>> etc. directly?
>
> There's a use case for *superusers* to fiddle with them, yes.
> (Superusers are presumed to be adults.) I think I recommend a quic
Robert Haas writes:
> Is there really a use case for users fiddling with pg_proc, pg_class,
> etc. directly?
There's a use case for *superusers* to fiddle with them, yes.
(Superusers are presumed to be adults.) I think I recommend a quick
UPDATE on some catalog at least once a month on the list
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Personally, I think it would be better to put some work into making
>> allow_system_table_mods a little less simple-minded. Right now,
>> !allow_system_table_mods prohibits you from doing perfectly sensible
>> things (as in
Robert Haas writes:
> Personally, I think it would be better to put some work into making
> allow_system_table_mods a little less simple-minded. Right now,
> !allow_system_table_mods prohibits you from doing perfectly sensible
> things (as in the OP's original example) yet still allows you to do
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh writes:
>> allow_system_table_mods needs a restart :( .Yet another parameter I wish was
>> changeable on the fly.
>
> I'm not sure there's any compelling reason why it couldn't be SUSET.
> Maybe a TODO ...
Personally, I think it wou
Gurjeet Singh writes:
> allow_system_table_mods needs a restart :( .Yet another parameter I wish was
> changeable on the fly.
I'm not sure there's any compelling reason why it couldn't be SUSET.
Maybe a TODO ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgs
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh writes:
> > On PG 8.4.4 I am unable to set per-table autovacuum setting for the
> > pg_listener table. Being a superuser, I'd expect Postgres to allow me to
> do
> > that.
>
> See allow_system_table_mods. Even superusers should thi
Gurjeet Singh writes:
> On PG 8.4.4 I am unable to set per-table autovacuum setting for the
> pg_listener table. Being a superuser, I'd expect Postgres to allow me to do
> that.
See allow_system_table_mods. Even superusers should think twice before
fooling with system catalogs...
10 matches
Mail list logo