Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch to remove USERLIMIT

2004-11-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would be glad to see USERLIMIT gone, even though I wrote it. However, I feel we are removing user's ability of non-super users to turn logging on and off easily without really having thought through a mechanism to give them that.

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch to remove USERLIMIT

2004-11-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: started because setting these variables via ALTER USER fails to work. It fails to work if logging was already on and someone wants to turn it off via ALTER USER, and that matches the expected behavior. Not if a

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch to remove USERLIMIT

2004-11-11 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would be glad to see USERLIMIT gone, even though I wrote it. However, I feel we are removing user's ability of non-super users to turn logging on and off easily without really having thought through a mechanism to give them that. I think that is a

[PATCHES] Proposed patch to remove USERLIMIT

2004-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
The attached patch removes GUC's USERLIMIT variable category, changing all the affected variables to be plain SUSET, as per recent discussion. I also modified postgres.c so that variable settings coming from the client connection request packet (eg, from PGOPTIONS on the client side) are

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch to remove USERLIMIT

2004-11-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: The attached patch removes GUC's USERLIMIT variable category, changing all the affected variables to be plain SUSET, as per recent discussion. I also modified postgres.c so that variable settings coming from the client connection request packet (eg, from PGOPTIONS on the