Re: Should we remove db_user_namespace?

On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 1:34 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:43:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 08:49:26PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:21:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> Removing the GUC from this table is kind of annoying.  Cannot this be
> >>> handled like default_with_oids or ssl_renegotiation_limit to avoid any
> >>> kind of issues with the reload of dump files and the kind?
> >>
> >> Ah, good catch.
> >
> > Thanks.  Reading through the patch, this version should be able to
> > handle the dump reloads.
>
> Hm.  Do we actually need to worry about this?  It's a PGC_SIGHUP GUC, so it
> can only be set at postmaster start or via a configuration file.  Any dump
> files that are trying to set it or clients that are trying to add it to
> startup packets are already broken.  I guess keeping the GUC around would
> avoid breaking any configuration files or startup scripts that happen to be
> setting it to false, but I don't know if that's really worth worrying
> about.

I'd lean towards "no". A hard break, when it's a major release, is
better than a "it stopped having effect but didn't tell you anything"
break. Especially when it comes to things like startup scripts etc.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/