On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Barring someone committing to spend the time to improve that situation >> (time that would be poorly invested IMO), I don't think that we want to >> open up ignore_system_indexes as USERSET, or do anything else to encourage >> its use. >> >> If we're intent on removing PGC_BACKEND then I'd be okay with >> reclassifying ignore_system_indexes as SUSET; but I'm not exactly >> convinced that we should be trying to get rid of PGC_BACKEND. > > Well, if you want to discourage its use, I think there's an argument > that marking it as SUSET would be more restrictive than what we have > at present, since it would altogether prohibit non-superuser use. > > I'm not wedded to the idea of getting rid of PGC_BACKEND, but I do > like it. Peter's survey of the landscape seems to show that there's > very little left in that category and the stuff that is there is > somewhat uninspiring. And simplifying things is always nice.
Documentation fixes for the use of local_preload_libraries have been pushed, now there has been some wider discussion about changing the mode of a couple of parameters since PGC_SU_BACKEND has been introduced. Any problems to switch this patch to "Returned with feedback"? The discussion done here is wider than the simple use of local_preload_libraries in any case. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers