> On Nov 16, 2021, at 2:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> BTW, another objection to pg_config_param as designed here is that
> a "name" is not an appropriate way to store possibly-qualified
> custom GUC names. It's not long enough (cf. valid_custom_variable_name).
I was aware of that, but figured not all GUCs have to be grantable. If it doesn't fit in a NameData, you can't grant
onit.
If we want to be more accommodating than that, we can store it as text, just like pg_db_role_names does, but then we
needmore code complexity to look it up and to verify that it is unique. (We wouldn't want multiple records for the
same<role,guc> pair.)
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company