| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Dimitri Fontaine" <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Josh" <josh(at)schemaverse(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SET variable - Permission issues |
| Date: | 2011-10-11 21:07:19 |
| Message-ID: | 4E9469B70200002500041E33@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This isn't exactly a trivial matter. What happens for instance if
> you try to change the limit, and there are already active values
> outside the limit in some processes?
I would certainly vote for enforcing on the SET and not causing an
error on the attempt to change the limit. (Maybe a notice?) At the
time they set the GUC, they were allowed to do so. It's a bit like
revoking a user's right to create a table in a schema -- what if
they've already done so? You leave the table and you don't let them
create another.
What problems do you see with that?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-11 21:10:46 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-10-11 21:04:57 | Re: Index only scan paving the way for "auto" clustered tables? |