2017-11-02 16:35 GMT+01:00 Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com>: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:05:54PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The variables can be modified by SQL command SET (this is taken from > > > standard, and it natural) > > > > > > SET varname = expression; > > > > Overloading SET to handle both variables and GUCs seems likely to > > create problems, possibly including security problems. For example, > > maybe a security-definer function could leave behind variables to > > trick the calling code into failing to set GUCs that it intended to > > set. Or maybe creating a variable at the wrong time will just break > > things randomly. > > That's already true of GUCs, since there are no access controls on > set_config()/current_setting(). > > Presumably "schema variables" would really just be GUC-like and not at > all like lexically scoped variables. And also subject to access > controls, thus an overall improvement on set_config()/current_setting(). > > With access controls, GUCs could become schema variables, and settings > from postgresql.conf could move into the database itself (which I think > would be nice). >
I am sorry, but I don't plan it. the behave of GUC is too different than behave of variables. But I am planning so system GUC can be "moved" to pg_catalog to be possibility to specify any object exactly. Regards Pavel > > Nico > -- >
