--On 21. September 2009 13:42:21 +0200 Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>
wrote:
>
>
> --On 20. September 2009 22:56:53 -0400 Robert Haas
> <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So is this ready to commit, or what?
>
> Not yet, see the comments Alvaro did upthread. Please note that i'm still
> reviewing this one and i hope to post results tomorrow (there wasn't
> plenty of free time over the weekend, i'm sorry).
>
Here some further comments on the current patch:
- I'm not sure i like the name of the new system catalog pg_setting. Wie
already have pg_settings, i think this can be confusing. Maybe we need a
different name, e.g. pg_user_setting? This seems along the line with the
other *user* system objects (e.g. pg_stat_user_tables), where only "user
specific" objects are displayed.
- I have thought a little bit about the changes in the system views.
pg_roles and pg_shadow (as Alvaro already mentioned), need to be adjusted
(joined to the new catalog), to display rolconfig/useconfig. However, it's
unclear *how* to expose those information, for example, do we want to
expose roleconfig specific for the current database or for all databases
the role has a specific config for ?
- The code mentions the lack of lock synchronization. Maybe i'm missing
something obvious (its late here), but is there a reason this can't be done
by obtaining a lock on pg_authid (not sure about the backend user
initialization phase though) ?
- Regarding the missing UI: i go with Alvaro's proposal:
ALTER ROLE <rolename> [ALTER] DATABASE <dbname> SET <config> TO <value>;
Maybe we can make the 2nd ALTER optional.
Thoughts?
--
Thanks
Bernd