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

Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn
Date: 2012-05-03 14:13:53
Message-ID: 22418.1336054433@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

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