On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 10:23:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:04 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> To me, externally_managed_configuration is promising a lot more than it > >> delivers because there is still a lot of ocnfiguration it doesn't > >> control. I am also confused why the purpose of the feature, external > >> management of configuation, is part of the variable name. We usually > >> name parameters for what they control. > > > I actually agree with this. I wasn't going to quibble with it because > > other people seemed to like it. But I think something like > > allow_alter_system would be better, as it would describe the exact > > thing that the parameter does, rather than how we think the parameter > > ought to be used. > > +1. The overpromise-and-underdeliver aspect of the currently proposed > name is a lot of the reason I've been unhappy and kept pushing for it > to lock things down more. "allow_alter_system" is a lot more > straightforward about exactly what it does, and if that is all we want > it to do, then a name like that is good.
I am thinking "enable_alter_system_command" is probably good because we already use "enable" so why not reuse that idea, and I think "command" is needed because we need to clarify we are talking about the command, and not generic altering of the system. We could use "enable_sql_alter_system" if people want something shorter. Will people think this allows non-root users to use ALTER SYSTEM if enabled? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
