Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Upgrading rant.

From: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>,mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>,PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Date: 2003-01-05 14:47:48
Message-ID: 1041778067.15932.238.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.
> 
> BTW:
> 
> $ 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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg CopelandDate: 2003-01-05 14:53:25
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] v7.3.1 Bundled and Released ...
Previous:From: Justin CliftDate: 2003-01-05 13:21:51
Subject: Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group