On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> Thanks for providing thoughts. I'm personally not in favour of adding
> any new syntax, as the new syntax would require some education and
> changes to other layers. I see some downsides with new syntax:
> 1) It will be a bit difficult to
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 12:11 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022, at 8:12 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>
> How about we provide a sample extension (limiting some important
> parameters say shared_buffers, work_mem and so on to some
> "reasonable/recommended" limits) in the core along
On Wed, May 4, 2022, at 8:12 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> How about we provide a sample extension (limiting some important
> parameters say shared_buffers, work_mem and so on to some
> "reasonable/recommended" limits) in the core along with the
> set_config_option_hook? This way, all the people
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 7:12 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> Thanks Tom and Robert for your responses.
>
> How about we provide a sample extension (limiting some important
> parameters say shared_buffers, work_mem and so on to some
> "reasonable/recommended" limits) in the core along with the
>
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 10:43 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 11:45 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> > > I have some desire here to see us solve this problem not just for
> > > service providers, but for users in general. You don't have to be a
> > > service provider
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 11:45 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > I have some desire here to see us solve this problem not just for
> > service providers, but for users in general. You don't have to be a
> > service provider to want to disallow SET work_mem = '1TB' -- you just
> > need
Robert Haas writes:
> I have some desire here to see us solve this problem not just for
> service providers, but for users in general. You don't have to be a
> service provider to want to disallow SET work_mem = '1TB' -- you just
> need to be a DBA on a system where such a setting will cause bad
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 10:54 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Bharath Rupireddy writes:
> > I propose to add a simple new hook in set_config_option (void
> > set_config_option_hook(struct config_generic *record);) and the
> > vendors can implement their own platform-dependent extensions to
> > accept or
Bharath Rupireddy writes:
> I propose to add a simple new hook in set_config_option (void
> set_config_option_hook(struct config_generic *record);) and the
> vendors can implement their own platform-dependent extensions to
> accept or reject certain parameters (based on platform/VM
>
Hi,
Right now postgres can't prevent users setting certain configuration
parameters or GUCs (like shared_buffers, temp_buffers, work_mem,
maintenance_work_mem, max_stack_depth, temp_file_limit,
max_worker_processes, other worker processes settings,
effective_io_concurrency and so on) to
10 matches
Mail list logo
