Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 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 lists.
You might care to consider the fact that no modern Unix system prevents
root from doing rm -rf /, even though that's "obviously" disastrous.
Yet (stretching the analogy all out of shape) there's no convenient user
tool for rearranging the contents of all the inodes on a filesystem.
> At any rate, I'd be happy to drop that part of the proposal. It would
> be a step forward just to permit (even without
> allow_system_table_mods) those changes which don't alter the structure
> of the catalog. For ALTER TABLE, the SET STATISTICS, (RE)SET
> (attribute_option), SET STORAGE, CLUSTER ON, SET WITHOUT CLUSTER, and
> (RE)SET (reloptions) forms are all things that fall into this
> category, I believe.
It would be far less work to just drop allow_system_table_mods to SUSET.
And we wouldn't get questions about which forms of ALTER TABLE require
it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
