On 2013-05-13 12:59:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I wrote: > >> Another way to fix that inconsistency is to consider that > >> allow_system_table_mods should gate table creations not just drops in > >> pg_catalog. I'm not real sure why this wasn't the case all along ... > > > > Uh, scratch that last comment: actually, allow_system_table_mods *did* > > gate that, in every existing release. I bitched upthread about the fact > > that this was changed in 9.3, and did not hear any very satisfactory > > defense of the change. > > It disallowed it only for tables, and not for any other object type. > I found that completely arbitrary. It's perfectly obvious that people > want to be able to create objects in pg_catalog; shall we adopt a rule > that you can put extension there, as long as those extensions don't > happen to contain tables? That is certainly confusing and arbitrary.
Why don't we just prohibit deletion/modification for anything below FirstNormalObjectId instead of using the schema as a restriction? Then we can allow creation for tables as well. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
