Greg Copeland wrote:
> 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.
That was my feeling too. If you can't trust the other admins, it is
hard for us to trust them either.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-01-06 03:25:21|
|Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.|
|Previous:||From: Dan Langille||Date: 2003-01-06 03:21:49|
|Subject: Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...|