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 14:26:34
Message-ID: 22703.1336055194@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.

> It can be rather useful for others as well, though - since it works as
> a defense against superusers doing the wrong thing..

I'm having a hard time seeing the use-case for a user-created database
that nobody at all can connect to.  Even if there is some marginal use
for that, you could achieve the result with a special entry in
pg_hba.conf to "reject" all connection attempts for that DB.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-05-03 14:28:26
Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-05-03 14:22:44
Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

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