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 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.

Yeah, I agree that from the perspective of template0, it definitely
looks that way.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

• Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn at 2012-05-03 14:13:53 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn at 2012-05-03 14:26:34 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-05-03 14:26:34
	Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn
Previous:	From: Merlin Moncure	Date: 2012-05-03 14:18:27
	Subject: Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ?