Nathan Bossart writes:
> Regarding returning 0 instead of -1 for the parallel case, I think that
> follows. While doing some additional research, I noticed this return value
> was just added in December (commit 059de3c [0]). Before that, it
> apparently assumed that elevel >= ERROR. With that a
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 12:57:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, the header comment could stand to be improved to make this
> clearer. I think there are more conditions being checked now than
> existed when the comment was written. But the para right below the
> bit you quoted is pretty clear th
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 06:50:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, now that the error depends on which parameter we're talking
>> about, I thought it best to include the parameter name in the error
>> and to re-word it to be more like all the other can't-set-this-now
>> er
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 06:50:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a draft patch to fix it with a flag, now with regression tests.
Looks reasonable.
> Also, now that the error depends on which parameter we're talking
> about, I thought it best to include the parameter name in the error
> and to r
I wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> Another option might be to introduce a new GUC flag or source for anything
>> we want to bypass the check (perhaps with the stipulation that it must also
>> be marked PGC_INTERNAL).
> A new GUC flag seems like a promising approach, and better than
> giving a b
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 04:04:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I had been thinking along the same lines. Here's a draft
>> patch. (Still needs some attention to nearby comments, and I can't
>> avoid the impression that the miscinit.c code in this area could
>> use re
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 04:04:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> From a couple of quick tests, it looks like setting
>> "current_role_is_superuser" directly works.
>
> Yeah, I had been thinking along the same lines. Here's a draft
> patch. (Still needs some attention to nea
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:43:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The simplest fix would be to hack this test to allow the action anyway
>> when context == PGC_INTERNAL, excusing that as "assume the caller
>> knows what it's doing". That feels pretty grotty though. Perhaps
>>
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:43:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The simplest fix would be to hack this test to allow the action anyway
> when context == PGC_INTERNAL, excusing that as "assume the caller
> knows what it's doing". That feels pretty grotty though. Perhaps
> a cleaner way would be to mov
