On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:30 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@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
packagersand "os administrators", then the problem is already solved. This patch is about trying to solve it *without*
involvingthe 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
justificationof 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
runsequential scans, it just disables the "usual way". Just like this patch doesn't prevent the superuser from editing
theconfig, 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
