From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: alter user set local_preload_libraries. |
Date: | 2014-11-12 18:01:36 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFvGYaDUJyLF_MPysO5yBTdwUC3decaXsxOS3XmWwCU4w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 10/9/14 1:58 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Also I think that it's useful to allow ALTER ROLE/DATABASE SET to
>> set PGC_BACKEND and PGC_SU_BACKEND parameters. So, what
>> about applying the attached patch? This patch allows that and
>> changes the context of session_preload_libraries to PGC_SU_BACKEND.
>
> After looking through this again, I wonder whether there is any reason
> why ignore_system_indexes cannot be plain PGC_USERSET. With this
> change, we'd allow setting it via ALTER ROLE, but the access to
> pg_db_role_setting happens before it.
Even without the patch, we can set ignore_system_indexes
at the startup of the connection because it's defined with
PGC_BACKEND context, but the access to system tables
can happen before that. Am I missing something?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-12 18:04:12 | Re: what does this mean: "running xacts with xcnt == 0" |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-12 17:53:41 | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |