Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Is there a particular reason we don't have an ALTER DATABASE switch
> that controls the datallowconn, or is it just something "missed out"?

It was never intended to be a user-accessible switch, just something to
protect template0.

I don't agree with Simon's proposal to hard-wire protection for
template0 instead; that's ugly, and sometimes you do need to be able to
turn it off.  But that's something that should be done only with adult
supervision, so having a nice friendly ALTER DATABASE command for it
seems exactly the wrong thing.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn at 2012-05-03 12:31:45 from Magnus Hagander

Responses

• Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn at 2012-05-03 14:22:44 from Magnus Hagander

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-05-03 14:17:57
	Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Previous:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2012-05-03 14:01:27
	Subject: Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ?