On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the
> super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period. Superusers are just
> as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else.
> $ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=1
> postmaster: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than max_connections.
Well, first, let me say that the above just seems wrong. I can't think
of any valid reason why reserved shouldn't be allowed to equal max.
I also assumed that pg_update would be attempting to connect as the
superuser. Therefore, if you only allow a single connection from the
superuser and pg_upgrade is using it, that would seem fairly hard to
mess things up. On top of that, that's also the risk of someone being a
superuser. They will ALWAYS have the power to hose things. Period. As
such, I don't consider that to be a valid argument.
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Copeland||Date: 2003-01-05 14:53:25|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] v7.3.1 Bundled and Released ...|
|Previous:||From: Justin Clift||Date: 2003-01-05 13:21:51|
|Subject: Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...|