On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:30 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > Not really. The administrator can *already* do that. It's trivial. > > This patch is about doing it in a way that doesn't produce as ugly a > message.But if we're "delegating" it to packagers and "os administrators", > then the problem is already solved. This patch is about trying to solve it > *without* involving the packagers or OS administrators. > > Not saying we shouldn't do it, but I'd argue the exact opposite of yours > aboe, which is that it's very much not the justification of the patch :)
OK, that's a fair way of looking at it, too (and also you break client tools). >> I mean, for crying out loud, users can set enable_seqscan=off in >> postgresql.conf and GLOBALLY DISABLE SEQUENTIAL SCANS. They can set > > This is actually a good example, because it's kind of like this patch. It > doesn't *actually* disable the ability to run sequential scans, it just > disables the "usual way". Just like this patch doesn't prevent the superuser > from editing the config, but it does prevent them droin doing it "the usual > way". Good point. >> zero_damaged_pages=on in postgresql.conf and silently remove vast >> quantities of data without knowing that they're doing anything. We >> don't even question that stuff ... although we probably should be > > I like how you got this far and didn't even mention fsync=off :) Ha! -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
