On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 01:24:06PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'd lean towards "no". A hard break, when it's a major release, is
> better than a "it stopped having effect but didn't tell you anything"
> break. Especially when it comes to things like startup scripts etc.
Committed.
--
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 1:34 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:43:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 08:49:26PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:21:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> Removing the GUC from this
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:43:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 08:49:26PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:21:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Removing the GUC from this table is kind of annoying. Cannot this be
>>> handled like
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:43:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks. Reading through the patch, this version should be able to
> handle the dump reloads.
Thanks for reviewing. I'm currently planning to commit this sometime next
week.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 08:49:26PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:21:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Removing the GUC from this table is kind of annoying. Cannot this be
>> handled like default_with_oids or ssl_renegotiation_limit to avoid any
>> kind of issues
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:21:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Removing the GUC from this table is kind of annoying. Cannot this be
> handled like default_with_oids or ssl_renegotiation_limit to avoid any
> kind of issues with the reload of dump files and the kind?
Ah, good catch.
--
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 02:29:27PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> },
> - {
> - {"db_user_namespace", PGC_SIGHUP, CONN_AUTH_AUTH,
> - gettext_noop("Enables per-database user names."),
> - NULL
> - },
> -
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 04:20:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am on the side of +1'ing for the removal.
Here is a rebased version of the patch. So far no one has responded to the
pgsql-general thread [0], and no one here has argued for keeping this
parameter. I'm planning to bump the
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 01:05:09PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The attached patch simply removes the GUC.
I am on the side of +1'ing for the removal.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 12:13:26AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Strong +1 from here for removing it, assuming you don't find a bunch
> of users on -general who are using it. Having never come across one
> myself, I think it's unlikely, but I agree it's good to ask.
Cool. I'll let that thread
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:43 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 05:40:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Might be worth asking on pgsql-general whether anyone knows of
> > active use of this feature. If not, I'm good with killing it.
>
> Will do.
Strong +1 from here for removing
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 05:40:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Might be worth asking on pgsql-general whether anyone knows of
> active use of this feature. If not, I'm good with killing it.
Will do.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 05:29:04PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am the original author, and it was a hack designed to support
> per-database user names. I am fine with its removal.
Thanks, Bruce.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Nathan Bossart writes:
> I'm personally not aware of anyone using this parameter.
Might be worth asking on pgsql-general whether anyone knows of
active use of this feature. If not, I'm good with killing it.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 01:05:09PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I think this is the second decennial thread [0] for removing this GUC.
> This topic came up at PGCon, so I thought I'd start the discussion on the
> lists.
>
> I'm personally not aware of anyone using this parameter. A couple of
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 01:05:09PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The attached patch simply removes the GUC.
And here's a new version of the patch with docs that actually build.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>From 3b7fdd41eb429bc9bb03dcecf38126fbc63dafa3 Mon Sep
I think this is the second decennial thread [0] for removing this GUC.
This topic came up at PGCon, so I thought I'd start the discussion on the
lists.
I'm personally not aware of anyone using this parameter. A couple of my
colleagues claimed to have used it in the aughts, but they also noted
17 matches
Mail list logo
